On Wednesday, 16 October 2013 at 19:49:25 UTC, monarch_dodra
wrote:
On Wednesday, 16 October 2013 at 17:50:48 UTC, Daniel Davidson
wrote:
How do you propose to make a mutable copy *generically*?
You can't. Let alone generically.
If I give you an "immutable int* p", how do you copy it to
"int
On Wednesday, 16 October 2013 at 19:49:25 UTC, monarch_dodra
wrote:
On Wednesday, 16 October 2013 at 17:50:48 UTC, Daniel Davidson
wrote:
How do you propose to make a mutable copy *generically*?
You can't. Let alone generically.
If I give you an "immutable int* p", how do you copy it to
"int
On Wednesday, 16 October 2013 at 17:50:48 UTC, Daniel Davidson
wrote:
How do you propose to make a mutable copy *generically*?
You can't. Let alone generically.
If I give you an "immutable int* p", how do you copy it to "int*
p" ?
On Wednesday, 16 October 2013 at 18:11:48 UTC, Daniel Davids
On Wednesday, 16 October 2013 at 18:14:22 UTC, Daniel Davidson
wrote:
I agree with the sentiment. But as it stands I think a copy
should not be necessary. I could make a local mutable R, pass
it to createRFromT to get it initialized and then copy it back
somehow to the member variable r. That t
On Wednesday, 16 October 2013 at 18:09:55 UTC, Maxim Fomin wrote:
On Wednesday, 16 October 2013 at 17:05:25 UTC, Daniel Davidson
wrote:
The code below fails to compile due to the last line. I was
hoping casting away immutable would allow the call to foo. I
think it is not accepted because of th
On Wednesday, 16 October 2013 at 17:55:56 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
struct S {
R r;
this(ref immutable(T) t) immutable {
r.tupleof = t.tupleof;
}
}
?
Thanks. It is cute - but not so helpful. The example stands. I
*need* to call a createRFromT.
Their shapes are the same in this simple ex
On Wednesday, 16 October 2013 at 17:58:41 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Wednesday, 16 October 2013 at 17:50:48 UTC, Daniel Davidson
wrote:
On Wednesday, 16 October 2013 at 17:16:39 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
It works as it should. Make a mutable copy of t2 and pass it.
Or make foo() accept const. I can't i
On Wednesday, 16 October 2013 at 17:05:25 UTC, Daniel Davidson
wrote:
The code below fails to compile due to the last line. I was
hoping casting away immutable would allow the call to foo. I
think it is not accepted because of the rval to ref issue. If
that is the case, how can foo be called by
struct S {
R r;
this(ref immutable(T) t) immutable {
r.tupleof = t.tupleof;
}
}
?
On Wednesday, 16 October 2013 at 17:50:48 UTC, Daniel Davidson
wrote:
On Wednesday, 16 October 2013 at 17:16:39 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
It works as it should. Make a mutable copy of t2 and pass it.
Or make foo() accept const. I can't imagine a single
legitimate use case for destroying type system
On Wednesday, 16 October 2013 at 17:16:39 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
It works as it should. Make a mutable copy of t2 and pass it.
Or make foo() accept const. I can't imagine a single legitimate
use case for destroying type system in a way you want.
How do you propose to make a mutable copy *generi
On Wednesday, 16 October 2013 at 17:05:25 UTC, Daniel Davidson
wrote:
import std.conv;
struct T {
int[] i;
string[string] ss;
}
void foo(ref T t) {
}
void main() {
T t1;
auto t2 = immutable T();
foo(t1);
foo(cast()t2);
}
It works as it should. Make a mutable copy of t2 and pass i
The code below fails to compile due to the last line. I was
hoping casting away immutable would allow the call to foo. I
think it is not accepted because of the rval to ref issue. If
that is the case, how can foo be called by casting?
I'm not a fan of casting but I'm finding cases where it is
13 matches
Mail list logo
