Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > IMHO it's more general if the regexp took the string type as a > parameter. This is because later that is easier generalizable to > accepting a range that's different from an array.
Agreed.Given T which may be an immutable type, what is the cleanest way of creating a mutable copy of that type? typeof(array.dup) works on arrays but what if T is a value type or any type where .dup doesn't exist?
Ali
