Re: opEquals(const ref yadaYada)

[lws]

On 2009-12-13 04:29:28 -0800, Steven Schveighoffer <schvei...@yahoo.com> said:
Richard Webb Wrote:

Hi,
I mentioned this problem in the thread @
http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D.learn&article_id=18405

I 

ran into the rvalue problem while trying to get Juno to compile, and 
found that it builds ok if you declare both

bool opEquals(const ref Foo rhs) const

and

bool opEquals(Foo rhs) const


Note the resulting bug: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3607

I also don't believe Richard's workaround is a "solution".  The 
compiler should not force you to create a const ref version if the 
argument can be implicitly cast from const to mutable.

-Steve

I don't know if I buy that the opEquals thing is a bug.  However,   
that const destructor thing in the other thread needs to be fixed.



////////////////////////////////
struct Foo
{
        ~this()
        {
                
        }
}

void Bar()
{
        const Foo f;
}
////////////////////////////////

Definitely produces incorrect behavior.