On 9/17/10 10:48 CDT, Michel Fortin wrote:
I understand the intent quite well. I'm talking about what happens if the source is const?
The whole point is, mutation is the motivator. If you copy an empty hash, no problem because the receiver can't mutate it.
In my mind it's simpler to just explain the notion that an uninitialized hash is null and detached from anything else until initialized. Objects works like this (minus the implicit initialization part), so it shouldn't be too hard to understand. Better have pragmatic semantics that work rather than idealistic semantics that fail at a number of cases.
That's a fair point. Andrei
