On Thu, 30 Jan 2014 11:04:44 -0500, Cooler <kul...@hotbox.ru> wrote:
On Thursday, 30 January 2014 at 16:01:32 UTC, Cooler wrote:
On Thursday, 30 January 2014 at 15:59:48 UTC, Cooler wrote:
On Thursday, 30 January 2014 at 15:51:44 UTC, Tobias Pankrath wrote:
On Thursday, 30 January 2014 at 15:49:35 UTC, Cooler wrote:
I agree. I just want that the case can be expressed in language
syntax more obvious - something like "fun(int[] const x){}" to
emphasize that I understand that fun() can change content of
array, and cannot change the {pointer,size} pair.
That's what fun(int[] x) does :)
-Steve
Again...
void fun(int[] x){ x ~= 5; }
auto a = new int[10];
fun(a); // Can you predict the content of 'a'?
It's [0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0].
No!!! It depends how runtime allocates memory for the array. Read
http://dlang.org/d-array-article.html.
If 'a' has internal space enough to place '5' the caller will see
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 5].
Sorry!!! My mistake. The caller will see [0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]
:)
But that is the proof. The intention of fun() implementer will not be
achieved. And such misunderstanding will appear only at runtime.
void foo(int x)
{
x = 5;
}
"hey, why doesn't that work! Setting a parameter to another value should
be illegal!"
-Steve
