On Wednesday, 16 October 2013 at 19:49:25 UTC, monarch_dodra
wrote:
On Wednesday, 16 October 2013 at 17:50:48 UTC, Daniel Davidson
wrote:
How do you propose to make a mutable copy *generically*?
You can't. Let alone generically.
If I give you an "immutable int* p", how do you copy it to
"int* p" ?
That was my point.
On Wednesday, 16 October 2013 at 18:11:48 UTC, Daniel Davidson
wrote:
Thanks. It is cute - but not so helpful. The example stands. I
*need* to call a createRFromT.
Their shapes are the same in this simple example because I
simplified. Make R look like:
struct R {
string[string] ss;
int[] j;
}
and the cute trick falls apart. In words, I have an R and I
want to make a T. The R is const the T will be immutable
because the ctor requires it. But it is technically not
immutable until it is initialized.
The problem is that you are taking a const(R). And you can't
assign a const to an immutable. It has nothing to do with
initialization.
No I don't think I am. What code are you looking at?
A copy *might* not be necessary provided building an immutable
copy from mutable is actually legal. This is not your case.
What you are doing is warping the type system.
Based on your previous comment, I don't think you understood the
setup.
