[Issue 8486] Possibly wrong interaction of Variant and const arrays

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8486 Iain Buclaw changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P2 |P3 --

[Issue 8486] Possibly wrong interaction of Variant and const arrays

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8486 --- Comment #8 from berni44 --- (In reply to David Nadlinger from comment #7) > Removal of "head const", i.e. the outer layer, is intentional. OK. In that case this is a Phobos bug. The solution would be to make peek remove "head const" on the given

[Issue 8486] Possibly wrong interaction of Variant and const arrays

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8486 --- Comment #7 from David Nadlinger --- (In reply to berni44 from comment #6) > For me the question remains: Is this intentional (for reasons I don't > understand yet) or a language bug? Removal of "head const", i.e. the outer layer, is intentional.

[Issue 8486] Possibly wrong interaction of Variant and const arrays

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8486 berni44 changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bugzi...@d-ecke.de --- Comment #6 from berni44

[Issue 8486] Possibly wrong interaction of Variant and const arrays

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8486 --- Comment #3 from cybevnm cybe...@gmail.com 2012-08-01 12:58:14 PDT --- (In reply to comment #2) … the point being that this is, if anything, analogous to the constness of the Variant instance itself, not the contained type. Unfortunately,

[Issue 8486] Possibly wrong interaction of Variant and const arrays

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8486 --- Comment #4 from klickverbot c...@klickverbot.at 2012-08-01 13:08:10 PDT --- I meant that Variant should regard e.g. const(T[]) and const(T)[] or const(T*) and const(T)* equivalent, i.e. allow implicit conversion between them. The fact

[Issue 8486] Possibly wrong interaction of Variant and const arrays

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8486 --- Comment #5 from cybevnm cybe...@gmail.com 2012-08-01 13:43:19 PDT --- (In reply to comment #4) I meant that Variant should regard e.g. const(T[]) and const(T)[] or const(T*) and const(T)* equivalent, i.e. allow implicit conversion between

[Issue 8486] Possibly wrong interaction of Variant and const arrays

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8486 klickverbot c...@klickverbot.at changed: What|Removed |Added CC||c...@klickverbot.at

[Issue 8486] Possibly wrong interaction of Variant and const arrays

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8486 --- Comment #2 from klickverbot c...@klickverbot.at 2012-07-31 13:09:26 PDT --- … the point being that this is, if anything, analogous to the constness of the Variant instance itself, not the contained type. -- Configure issuemail: