On Wednesday, 29 January 2014 at 13:15:30 UTC, Cooler wrote:
On Wednesday, 29 January 2014 at 12:40:00 UTC, Tobias Pankrath
wrote:
On Wednesday, 29 January 2014 at 11:46:23 UTC, Cooler wrote:
Thank you for detailed explanation. But the question is - "Is
that correct that language allows ambiguous behavior?"
Where is it ambiguous?
Ambiguity is here...
When I call fun1() or fun2() I know the behavior directly from
function signature (read the comments in my first post). For
fun3() case the caller side don't know the behavior directly
from function signature. To know what will happen with array
"a", the caller must see to fun3() body.
Ambiguity is - in first and second cases the caller knows what
happens with "a", but in third case the caller does not know
what happens with "a".
I believe you encounter an array reallocation.
If fun3 doesn't change the size of the array - you will see every
change made by fun3 to the contents of `a` (but the `a` itself
cannot be changed - only the contents). No other way around.
If, however, in fun3 you change the size of the array - it may
reallocate. Like, if you're appending to `x` - it will allocate a
new array and make x point to it. Now `a` and `x` point to
distinct arrays. And any change you do using `x` won't be seen by
`a`. And, yes, this is the intended behavior.
