On Monday, 17 March 2014 at 20:06:49 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 3/17/2014 12:03 PM, monarch_dodra wrote:
So yes, it compiles, but the implementation is still wrong.
Your implementation
allows assigning an immutable(int)* into an int*.
Unless there is a performance specific reason for using the
const, I don't see
why we aren't removing it.
The reason was I was alternately calling put() with mutable
char[] and immutable strings. I should look and see if there's
a better way.
Ah... right. That makes sense. Templatising it is what usually
makes the most sense, and most easilly solves the problem.
Something like:
put(E)(E[] s)
if (is(typeof(buf[] = s)))
That said, given that:
1: You might be worrying about un-needed template bloat for types
without indirections (such as strings)
2: You are only working with mutable types.
Then a static if should do the trick. Something like:
//----
static if (is(const(T) : T)
alias CT = const(T);
else
alias CT = T;
void put(T[] s)
{
...
buf[used .. newlen] = s[];
}
//----
unittest
{
ScopeBuffer!(int*) b;
int*[] s;
b.put(s);
ScopeBuffer!char c;
string s1;
char[] s2;
c.put(s1);
c.put(s2);
}
/----
This works for me.
Does this change seem acceptable for you? Should I submit that?
