On 2/24/11, Steven Schveighoffer <schvei...@yahoo.com> wrote: > But what you are asking is for the compiler to implicitly dup it.
Only when the lhs is a mutable type. If it's immutable (string), then you don't have to dup it. Hence: string a = "abc"; string b = "abc"; assert(&a[0] == &b[0]); There's no point in duping the literal in this case, it would just waste memory. >I have > thought this might be good to have in the past as well, but it's also not > too bad to have to type "test"d.dup. So while having the compiler save > you a bit of typing would be good, it's not the end of the world to > require it. > Of course it's not that hard. But when things can be safely automated, I don't see why they shouldn't be. Unless I'm missing some important factor of duping string literals that was not mentioned already. Btw, "test"d.dup is actually pretty nice. I would have used it before, but I didn't know I could use a postfix form /and/ dup it like that.
