Re: question on [Issue 7853]

2012-11-05 Thread Tobias Pankrath
On 11/05/2012 02:24 AM, Dan wrote: Thanks. The reason I'm down this path is something like below. I really want to keep const ref for parms on a method (e.g. foo below). It turns out the type is a assoc array and length and keys are both giving me a headache. Without the cast I get a message

Re: question on [Issue 7853]

2012-11-05 Thread Dan
On Monday, 5 November 2012 at 09:10:41 UTC, Tobias Pankrath wrote: Casting away const is okay as long as you don't change a single bit of your data. Yes, thanks. Makes sense. I need to know not only what I might be mutating, but also code I call. In this specific case, though I hope all

Re: question on [Issue 7853]

2012-11-05 Thread Tobias Pankrath
On 11/05/2012 12:43 PM, Dan wrote: On Monday, 5 November 2012 at 09:10:41 UTC, Tobias Pankrath wrote: I have not figured what to look at for associative arrays. For example, in .../druntime/import/object.di there is a struct called AssociativeArray which I imagine the [ foo : goo ] syntactic

Re: question on [Issue 7853]

2012-11-04 Thread Tobias Pankrath
On 04.11.2012 21:49, Dan wrote: This bug has no comments. The original says: The fix is obvious: redefine postblit as this(const this); but it isn't always obvious when looking at hundreds of lines of code Is this accepted/correct? In the following if I include the this(const this)

Re: question on [Issue 7853]

2012-11-04 Thread Dan
On Sunday, 4 November 2012 at 21:44:15 UTC, Tobias Pankrath wrote: I don't think that currently qualifiers work with the postblit constructor. See here for a related discussion. http://forum.dlang.org/thread/CAFDvkcvvL8GxHQB=Rw9pTm-uxOKzNGVQNDv9w5Os3SkQCc=d...@mail.gmail.com Thanks. The