digitalmars.D.learn - shared and idup
- Low Functioning (10/10) Aug 19 2014 shared int[] foo;
- "Marc =?UTF-8?B?U2Now7x0eiI=?= <schuetzm gmx.net> (3/13) Aug 19 2014 Try upgrading you compiler to the just released 2.067, it works
- Jonathan M Davis (6/21) Aug 19 2014 Actually, it's 2.066, but regardless, dup and idup were turned
shared int[] foo; auto bar() { foo ~= 42; return foo.idup; } Error: cannot implicitly convert element type shared(int) to immutable in foo.idup Is this not correct? If I instead dup'd an array of ints (or some other non-reference elements) and cast to immutable, would I be in danger of undefined behavior?
Aug 19 2014
On Tuesday, 19 August 2014 at 17:56:31 UTC, Low Functioning wrote:shared int[] foo; auto bar() { foo ~= 42; return foo.idup; } Error: cannot implicitly convert element type shared(int) to immutable in foo.idup Is this not correct? If I instead dup'd an array of ints (or some other non-reference elements) and cast to immutable, would I be in danger of undefined behavior?Try upgrading you compiler to the just released 2.067, it works for me with that version.
Aug 19 2014
On Tuesday, 19 August 2014 at 19:00:49 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:On Tuesday, 19 August 2014 at 17:56:31 UTC, Low Functioning wrote:Actually, it's 2.066, but regardless, dup and idup were turned into free functions, so that will probably fix some bugs where they didn't work with shared or weren't nothrow or somesuch (or if it doesn't, it puts them one step closer to it). - Jonathan M Davisshared int[] foo; auto bar() { foo ~= 42; return foo.idup; } Error: cannot implicitly convert element type shared(int) to immutable in foo.idup Is this not correct? If I instead dup'd an array of ints (or some other non-reference elements) and cast to immutable, would I be in danger of undefined behavior?Try upgrading you compiler to the just released 2.067, it works for me with that version.
Aug 19 2014