• =?iso-8859-2?B?VG9tZWsgU293afFza2k=?= (29/29) Dec 16 2009 Amusing things happen when immutable arguments and circular imports are ...
• grauzone (4/41) Dec 16 2009 There are a _lot_ of circular dependency bugs, and there are a lot of
• =?iso-8859-2?B?VG9tZWsgU293afFza2k=?= (11/14) Dec 17 2009 =

=?iso-8859-2?B?VG9tZWsgU293afFza2k=?= <just ask.me> writes:

Amusing things happen when immutable arguments and circular imports are  
put together:

----------------------------------------------
module hello;
import test;

struct Strukt {
     Staly* s;
}
----------------------------------------------
module test;
import hello;

immutable struct Staly {
     int a;
}

void f_strukt(Strukt* stk) {
     f_staly(stk.s);    // ups!
}

void f_staly(Staly* s) { }
----------------------------------------------

Error: function test.f_staly (immutable(Staly)* s) is not callable using  
argument types (Staly*)
Error: cannot implicitly convert expression ((*stk).s) of type Staly* to  
immutable(Staly)*

Am I writing code too weird or is this a compiler bug? The only thing  
about circular imports on D page is: "Cycles (circular dependencies) in  
the import declarations are allowed as long as not both of the modules  
contain static constructors or static destructors." So what I tried to  
pull off seems fair game.


Tomek

grauzone <none example.net> writes:

Tomek Sowiñski wrote:
 Amusing things happen when immutable arguments and circular imports are 
 put together:
 
 ----------------------------------------------
 module hello;
 import test;
 
 struct Strukt {
     Staly* s;
 }
 ----------------------------------------------
 module test;
 import hello;
 
 immutable struct Staly {
     int a;
 }
 
 void f_strukt(Strukt* stk) {
     f_staly(stk.s);    // ups!
 }
 
 void f_staly(Staly* s) { }
 ----------------------------------------------
 
 Error: function test.f_staly (immutable(Staly)* s) is not callable using 
 argument types (Staly*)
 Error: cannot implicitly convert expression ((*stk).s) of type Staly* to 
 immutable(Staly)*
 
 Am I writing code too weird or is this a compiler bug? The only thing 
 about circular imports on D page is: "Cycles (circular dependencies) in 
 the import declarations are allowed as long as not both of the modules 
 contain static constructors or static destructors." So what I tried to 
 pull off seems fair game.

There are a _lot_ of circular dependency bugs, and there are a lot of 
immutable related bugs. Combine both together and you get... probably 
even more bugs.

 
 Tomek

=?iso-8859-2?B?VG9tZWsgU293afFza2k=?= <just ask.me> writes:

Dnia 17-12-2009 o 01:14:53 grauzone <none example.net> napisa=B3(a):

 There are a _lot_ of circular dependency bugs, and there are a lot of =

 =

 immutable related bugs. Combine both together and you get... probably =

 =

 even more bugs.

So I'm noticing... BTW, what is your approach to avoid such woes when  =

writing in D2? Best I could think of so far is putting /*immutable*/,  =

/*pure*/, etc. and relying on "mind compiling" and discipline... which i=
s  =

little fun.

Anyway, thanks for reply. I filed a bug.
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3D3629


Tomek