On Mon, 04 May 2009 10:22:49 -0400, Qian Xu <quian...@stud.tu-ilmenau.de>
wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I think you might have a bug?
"".dup is the same as s.dup, not sure why you would expect it to be
not-null.
-Steve
If I have not explained clearly.
Here is the full code:
char[] s;
assert(s is null);
assert(s.dup is null);
assert("" !is null); // OK
assert("".dup !is null); // FAILED
At least the last two lines behave not consistent.
Either both are failed, or both are passed.
OK, your original post was this:
assert( s.dup is null); // OK
assert("".dup !is null); // FAILED
The compiler always returns a null array if you dup an empty array. The
reason being: why allocate memory for something that is zero length?
If anything, the oddity is this line:
assert("" !is null);
But of course, no memory is allocated for literals, so at least needless
memory allocation does not occur.
To be consistent, I think assert("" is null); should pass, but it's a
minor inconsistency at best.
I usually never compare arrays to null for this reason...
-Steve
