On 11/1/14 8:04 AM, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 11:55:53 +0000
anonymous via Digitalmars-d <[email protected]> wrote:
On Saturday, 1 November 2014 at 11:50:34 UTC, ketmar via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
this *IS* a bug. either compiler should error on this, or it
shouldn't
modify random memory. imagine the situation when old array
contents not
only collected by GC, but that memory was allocated to something
completely different.
The old array is still alive and kicking. The left-hand side
still references it. It wasn't collected. You're not writing to
random memory.
so it's not only writes to the stale copy, but protects that copy from
GC. what a great thing! and all this without even a small warning from
compiler. i can expect such behavior from c or c++ with all their UB,
but not from D. this is not only ugly, this is plainly wrong.
No, it's not. It's exactly as you requested when you wrote that code :)
Note, you can fix this by overloading opAssign in Info, and it should
work as you expect. This will force a delay in the evaluation of which
array is used until *after* the RHS is done.
-Steve
