• simendsjo (4/4) Sep 22 2013 In 2.063.2, (T!int).stringof == "T!(int)". In current head, it's
• simendsjo (3/7) Sep 22 2013 Added a ticket so it doesn't get lost:
• Jacob Carlborg (6/9) Sep 23 2013 Apparently you shouldn't rely on the format of .stringof. See the

"simendsjo" <simendsjo gmail.com> writes:

In 2.063.2, (T!int).stringof == "T!(int)". In current head, it's 
"T!int".
Even (T!(int)).stringof == "T!int".

So is this a regression bug or a bugfix?

"simendsjo" <simendsjo gmail.com> writes:

On Sunday, 22 September 2013 at 13:50:00 UTC, simendsjo wrote:
 In 2.063.2, (T!int).stringof == "T!(int)". In current head, 
 it's "T!int".
 Even (T!(int)).stringof == "T!int".

 So is this a regression bug or a bugfix?

Added a ticket so it doesn't get lost: 
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=11100

Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:

On 2013-09-22 15:49, simendsjo wrote:
 In 2.063.2, (T!int).stringof == "T!(int)". In current head, it's "T!int".
 Even (T!(int)).stringof == "T!int".

 So is this a regression bug or a bugfix?

Apparently you shouldn't rely on the format of .stringof. See the 
comment the ones that follow:

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10722#c4

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg