Steven Schveighoffer , dans le message (digitalmars.D.learn:30255), a
écrit :
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 11:20:01 -0400, Christophe
trav...@phare.normalesup.org wrote:
Daniel Murphy , dans le message (digitalmars.D.learn:30139), a écrit :
bearophile bearophileh...@lycos.com wrote in message
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 11:20:01 -0400, Christophe
trav...@phare.normalesup.org wrote:
Daniel Murphy , dans le message (digitalmars.D.learn:30139), a écrit :
bearophile bearophileh...@lycos.com wrote in message
news:j7jepi$prp$1...@digitalmars.com...
Daniel Murphy:
2)
immutable(int[]) fun() {
Daniel Murphy , dans le message (digitalmars.D.learn:30139), a écrit :
bearophile bearophileh...@lycos.com wrote in message
news:j7jepi$prp$1...@digitalmars.com...
Daniel Murphy:
2)
immutable(int[]) fun() { return new int[]; } // conversion happens here
immutable x = fun();
Bearophile's
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 02:40:12 -0400, Daniel Murphy
yebbl...@nospamgmail.com wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com wrote in message
news:op.v3h06olweav7ka@localhost.localdomain...
That sounds like an incorrect restriction. The implicit cast to
immutable
should depend on whether the
Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com wrote in message
news:op.v3lug2q2eav7ka@localhost.localdomain...
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 02:40:12 -0400, Daniel Murphy
yebbl...@nospamgmail.com wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com wrote in message
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 21:39:47 -0400, Daniel Murphy
yebbl...@nospamgmail.com wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com wrote in message
news:op.v3lug2q2eav7ka@localhost.localdomain...
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 02:40:12 -0400, Daniel Murphy
yebbl...@nospamgmail.com wrote:
Steven
Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com wrote in message
news:op.v3h06olweav7ka@localhost.localdomain...
That sounds like an incorrect restriction. The implicit cast to immutable
should depend on whether the function being *called* qualifies, not if the
function you are calling *from*
Daniel Murphy:
2)
immutable(int[]) fun() { return new int[]; } // conversion happens here
immutable x = fun();
Bearophile's example is of the second, where it definately matters what the
purity of the function is.
This is the enhancement request I have written days ago:
bearophile bearophileh...@lycos.com wrote in message
news:j7jepi$prp$1...@digitalmars.com...
Daniel Murphy:
2)
immutable(int[]) fun() { return new int[]; } // conversion happens here
immutable x = fun();
Bearophile's example is of the second, where it definately matters what
the
purity
On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 23:05:43 -0400, Daniel Murphy
yebbl...@nospamgmail.com wrote:
The implicit conversion to immutable is only possible inside strongly
pure
functions. When the parameter is 'in int[]' foo cannot be strongly pure,
only const pure. As 'in int[2]' is a value type, the second
The implicit conversion to immutable is only possible inside strongly pure
functions. When the parameter is 'in int[]' foo cannot be strongly pure,
only const pure. As 'in int[2]' is a value type, the second foo can be
strongly pure.
'new' expressions will hopefully be able to be converted
bearophile , dans le message (digitalmars.D.learn:29961), a écrit :
Andrej Mitrovic:
Maybe:
immutable(int[]) foo(in int[] x) pure {
return new immutable(int[1]);
}
void main() {}
I'd like to know why the code in my original post doesn't compile. I suspect
it's a DMD bug, but I
Christophe:
That is very consistent, so I don't think this
should be considered as a bug. There may be an improvement to ask to
make the compiler able to check when the cast to immutable is safe, but
I don't think there is a bug.
The compiler already performs such checks, in this case it
On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 19:19:37 -0400, bearophile bearophileh...@lycos.com
wrote:
Do you know why this program doesn't compile (with DMD 2.056head)?
immutable(int[]) foo(in int[] x) pure {
return new int[1];
}
void main() {}
It gives:
test.d(2): Error: cannot implicitly convert
Maybe:
immutable(int[]) foo(in int[] x) pure {
return new immutable(int[1]);
}
void main() {}
Or does this have something to do with implicit casts to immutable for
pure functions? I'm only vaguely familiar with pure..
Andrej Mitrovic:
Maybe:
immutable(int[]) foo(in int[] x) pure {
return new immutable(int[1]);
}
void main() {}
I'd like to know why the code in my original post doesn't compile. I suspect
it's a DMD bug, but I am not sure.
Or does this have something to do with implicit casts to
16 matches
Mail list logo
