On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 20:28:20 +0300, Steven Schveighoffer
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 12:15:20 -0500, bearophile
<[email protected]> wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer:
It would be nice to allow this:
int[3] x = [a, b, c];
This is allowed now.
Yes, but 1) it allocates the literal on the heap and then throws it
away, and 2) it would not be allowed if array literals are only allowed
to be immutable. I'm speaking from the context assuming that array
literals are made to be immutable by default.
-Steve
It just *can't* be immutable unless all the variables involved are
implicitly castable to immutable.
And what if I need a *mutable* array? .dup it?
My suggestion would be to be consistent with built-in types. See the
following examples:
auto x1 = 1; // defaults to int, not immutable int
immutable auto x2 = 1; // but immutable also fine
// typeof(x2) = immutable(int)
int a = 42;
immutable auto x3 = a; // you can also construct immutable from a mutable
// variable, if it is implicitly castable to one
Similarly:
auto x1 = [1]; // int[1]
immutable auto x2 = [1]; // immutable(int)[1]
int a = 42;
immutable auto x3 = [a]; // immutable(int)[1]
