On Saturday, 15 March 2014 at 00:11:22 UTC, bearophile wrote:
Do you think it's useful/worth supporting code like that?
My expectation would be that your code is implicitly the same as:
int[5] foo(int[2] a, int[3] b) {
int[5] staticArray;
int[] dynamicArray = a ~ b;
staticArray = dynamicArray;
return staticArray;
}
Based on the information at http://dlang.org/arrays.html, my
expectation would be that a copy requires the slice operator,
which isn't in your code. Thus it's trying to initialize
staticArray as a new dynamic array -- which obviously wouldn't
work.
Since your code doesn't have access to the hidden staticArray
variable, there's no way to write the correct code:
staticArray[] = dynamicArray;
Short of changing the standard to consider "a = b" to be
equivalent to "a[] = b" when both a and b are arrays, I don't
think your code should be handled. And I think such a change
would be dangerous.
The following works, and I think is probably acceptable.
int[5] foo(int[2] a, int[3] b) {
int[5] ret;
ret[] = a ~ b;
return ret;
}
