On 5 December 2014 at 15:51, Yu Sheng Oh wrote: > Yup, it may refer to the same issue which you have pointed out. It's definitely the same issue, I reduced your example to the minimum necessary to reproduce it and created the bug report. > But, > why the compiler deduce the return type in a inconsistent way, where > it can correctly deduce the return type in a single simple statement, > whereas it fails in another way? Thanks. Because there's a bug :-)
