Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2010-02-17 20:07:20 -0500, Michael Rynn <[email protected]>
said:
Is there anything that is really awkward in D2 working with immutable
string type, that cannot be done without resorting to mutable character
literals? If not, then the principle can be applied to all "immutable
source".
Well, array literals are not always constants. Take this for instance:
int[] array = [x, y, z];
This array literal does not have an "immutable source" as you call it.
This is the issue. The syntax sugar you get from not requiring an
"immutable source" comes at a very high price.
Should it really require a ".dup" to get a mutable array? How efficient
would it be?
What it does at the moment is insert a hidden .dup at all times. And the
performance is terrible. Really, really terrible. Roughly 100 times
worse than you expect.
At the moment, [1, 2, 3] is basically transformed into something like
makeArray(1,2,3);
