[Issue 4410] AA has inconsistent and unreasonable requirements for iterating over reference-type index
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4410 Steven Schveighoffer changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME --- Comment #6 from Steven Schveighoffer --- I wrote this so so long ago. I'm not sure this bug is relevant any more. Problems still do exist with keys being not-constant for reference types (classes), but iteration is not the problem there. --
[Issue 4410] AA has inconsistent and unreasonable requirements for iterating over reference-type index
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4410 RazvanN changed: What|Removed |Added CC||razvan.nitu1...@gmail.com --- Comment #5 from RazvanN --- Apart from the first foreach, the rest do not compile today. You can only ref an aa key if it is const. This makes sense in my opinion. @Steven, what else needs to be done to consider this issue fixed? --
[Issue 4410] AA has inconsistent and unreasonable requirements for iterating over reference-type index
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4410 hst...@quickfur.ath.cx changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hst...@quickfur.ath.cx --- Comment #4 from hst...@quickfur.ath.cx 2013-08-15 09:56:29 PDT --- AA keys only need to be immutable in the parts that are relevant to the hash function. For example, if a class object's toHash method simply casts 'this' to an integer value, then it doesn't matter what you change in the class, the AA will still work. Similarly, if a class object's toHash method computes a hash only on members x, y, z, then it's OK to change member variable w without breaking the AA. The only time you actually require immutability in AA keys is when you use the default hash function that computes a hash over the binary representation of the entire key. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4410] AA has inconsistent and unreasonable requirements for iterating over reference-type index
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4410 --- Comment #3 from Steven Schveighoffer 2010-07-02 05:15:40 PDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > Obviously, AA keys must be immutable. Making all array keys immutable is pretty restrictive as well. I don't want to see that happening either. I don't know if you've tried to work with immutable classes, but they are not that easy. A recommendation that they be immutable when possible is probably in order. But making them const is worse than immutable because it provides no guarantees and is still as annoying. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4410] AA has inconsistent and unreasonable requirements for iterating over reference-type index
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4410 nfx...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nfx...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from nfx...@gmail.com 2010-07-01 18:58:51 PDT --- Obviously, AA keys must be immutable. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4410] AA has inconsistent and unreasonable requirements for iterating over reference-type index
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4410 --- Comment #1 from Steven Schveighoffer 2010-07-01 05:53:32 PDT --- (In reply to comment #0) > first, ref should *never* be allowed as an index for AAs. I hope that someday > this can be extended to all user types (see related bug 2443). ... > Also, as mentioned, ref indexes should not be allowed. This used to be the > case, not sure why it was changed. I should clarify, I mean ref indexes during foreach. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
