On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 03:34, strtr wrote:
> Ellery Newcomer Wrote:
>
> > I just noticed that dup does not dup deep.
> >
> > In a two second search I couldn't find any reason for or against, but
> > I'd kinda like it if
> >
> > auto r2 = r.dup;
> > r2[i][j] = 0;
> > r[i][j] = 1;
> > assert(r2[i]
Ellery Newcomer Wrote:
> I just noticed that dup does not dup deep.
>
> In a two second search I couldn't find any reason for or against, but
> I'd kinda like it if
>
> auto r2 = r.dup;
> r2[i][j] = 0;
> r[i][j] = 1;
> assert(r2[i][j] != r[i][j]);
>
> held.
There have been discussions about t
I just noticed that dup does not dup deep.
In a two second search I couldn't find any reason for or against, but
I'd kinda like it if
auto r2 = r.dup;
r2[i][j] = 0;
r[i][j] = 1;
assert(r2[i][j] != r[i][j]);
held.
