On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 15:40:32 +0200, Timon Gehr <[email protected]> wrote:
DMD 2.059:
struct S{
immutable x = [1];
immutable y = 1;
}
void main(){
writeln(S.x); // ok
writeln(&S.x); // ok
writeln(S.y); // ok
// writeln(&S.y); // error
with(S) writeln(&y); // ok (but resulting pointer is wrong)
}
This behaviour is obviously buggy, but I am not sure to what extent.
What is the intended behaviour? Should initialised immutable instance
variables be accessible without an instance at all?
It gets worse:
writeln(S.sizeof); // 1, which is the same as an empty struct
S s;
writeln(&s); // Gives a good pointer
writeln(&s.x); // Gives a completely different pointer
// (the same as for &S.x)
This should show clearly that the compiler treats these as enum instead of
immutable, and thus do not leave them in the struct.
