Conversation
Contributor
|
As you mentioned the issue with two constructors, should that be considered a bug? |
chriseth
force-pushed
the
prepareRelease
branch
from
9e29758 to
5c9bc5c
Compare
axic
suggested changes
Apr 19, 2018
docs/bugs.json
Outdated
| "name": "OneOfTwoConstructorsSkipped", | ||
| "summary": "If a contract has both a new-style constructor (using the constructor keyword) and an old-style constructor (a function with the same name as the contract) at the same time, one of them will be ignored.", | ||
| "description": "If a contract has both a new-style constructor (using the constructor keyword) and an old-style constructor (a function with the same name as the contract) at the same time, one of them will be ignored. There will be a compiler warning about the old-style constructor, so contracts only using new-style constructors are fine.", | ||
| "fixed": "0.4.24", |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should have an introduced line with 0.4.23.
chriseth
force-pushed
the
prepareRelease
branch
2 times, most recently
from
b48991f to
4a420d7
Compare
axic
reviewed
Apr 19, 2018
docs/bugs_by_version.json
Outdated
| }, | ||
| "0.4.5": { | ||
| "bugs": [ | ||
| "OneOfTwoConstructorsSkipped", |
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
hm, something is wrong with the script...
axic
reviewed
Apr 19, 2018
docs/bugs.json
Outdated
| "summary": "If a contract has both a new-style constructor (using the constructor keyword) and an old-style constructor (a function with the same name as the contract) at the same time, one of them will be ignored.", | ||
| "description": "If a contract has both a new-style constructor (using the constructor keyword) and an old-style constructor (a function with the same name as the contract) at the same time, one of them will be ignored. There will be a compiler warning about the old-style constructor, so contracts only using new-style constructors are fine.", | ||
| "introduced": "0.4.23", | ||
| "fixed": "0.4.24", |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh also these two are broken: 0.4.22 and 0.4.23 :)
chriseth
force-pushed
the
prepareRelease
branch
from
4a420d7 to
420d8cf
Compare
axic
previously approved these changes
Apr 19, 2018
Contributor
Author
|
The tests fail for me, so let's see.... |
Contributor
Author
|
Ok, it seems we are fine and it is just a local problem. |
Contributor
Author
|
Argh, it seems it failed for the same reason: |
chriseth
force-pushed
the
prepareRelease
branch
from
420d8cf to
a79c9a1
Compare
Contributor
Author
|
Ok, now it should be working... |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
No description provided.