http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6722
Stewart Gordon <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |rejects-valid CC| |[email protected] Platform|Other |All OS/Version|Linux |All --- Comment #2 from Stewart Gordon <[email protected]> 2012-02-12 12:35:58 PST --- A char[] can be safely compared with an immutable(char)[], so the code should be valid. Putting a value into an AA is another matter though. (In reply to comment #1) > The simplest solution is to just make it so that it's illegal to > declare an AA with a key which isn't either a value type or > immutable Agreed. > and make it so that _all_ functions or operators which take the key > must take a type which is implicitly convertible to the key type > (including its immutability). For functions that put data into an AA, yes. For lookup functions (retrieval and removal), it should be sufficient that it's a type that is implicitly convertible to the const version of the key type. (Just having an == operator with the key type isn't sufficient, as it needs to check the hash first.) For foreach, the only requirement should be that the key variable is of a type to which the key type can be implicitly converted. But this is a distinct matter from this bug. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
