On Sunday, 29 December 2024 at 21:58:40 UTC, Renato Athaydes
wrote:
I expected this to be accepted by the compiler:
```
void foo(const(char[]) c) {
const(char[])[2] d;
d[0] = c;
}
```
```d
void foo(const(char)[] c){
const(char)[][2] d;
d[0] = c;
}
```
*AND*
```d
void foo(const(char[]) c){
const(char)[][2] d;
d[0] = c;
}
```
*AND*
```d
void foo(const(char[]) c) {
const(char)[][2] temp;
temp[0]=c;
const(char[])[2] d=temp;
}
```
compile
Why is this ok, but not the previous one?
I dont use const if I can help it so idk details; but slices are
reference types theres probably some theory about how the length
is spookily making promises about the data.
Maybe slices are the worse of both worlds of being reference and
value types, according to extreme safetyism?
