• Andrei Alexandrescu (15/15) Jun 09 2010 I'm thinking of the recently discussed problem and it seems that
• Michel Fortin (9/12) Jun 09 2010 This looks good to me.
• BCS (8/13) Jun 09 2010 b.vote++
• Simen kjaeraas (4/7) Jun 10 2010 This absolutely seems sensiblest. Vote++;
• Simen kjaeraas (4/7) Jun 10 2010 This absolutely seems sensiblest. Vote++;
• Steven Schveighoffer (5/8) Jun 10 2010 I think this works well.
• Bruno Medeiros (4/7) Jun 15 2010 tailconst strikes back? :]

Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:

I'm thinking of the recently discussed problem and it seems that 
immutable arrays are an issue not only for find(), but for all functions 
that need ranges.

To fix things I'd need to add code for detecting immutable(T[]) and 
converting it to immutable(T)[] for _every_ algorithm using ranges out 
there. That would make things worse from a readability standpoint.

So we're looking at a number of options:

(a) Leave things as they are. To use std.algorithm with immutable arrays 
you need to peel off the top-level immutable.

(b) Promote a change in the compiler to convert immutable(T[]) to 
immutable(T)[] when passed by value into a function. This is safe and 
sensible.

(c) Bludgeon std.algorithm to work with immutable(T[]).

What say you?


Andrei

Michel Fortin <michel.fortin michelf.com> writes:

On 2010-06-09 20:41:48 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu 
<SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> said:

 (b) Promote a change in the compiler to convert immutable(T[]) to 
 immutable(T)[] when passed by value into a function. This is safe and 
 sensible.

This looks good to me.

Although I wonder what happens if that range is a class, will you get a 
rebindable reference to a class?

-- 
Michel Fortin
michel.fortin michelf.com
http://michelf.com/

BCS <none anon.com> writes:

Hello Andrei,

 (b) Promote a change in the compiler to convert immutable(T[]) to
 immutable(T)[] when passed by value into a function. This is safe and
 sensible.

 What say you?

b.vote++

Making that an implicit conversion on any copy should be safe. But would 
it have any side effects?

Also, would that strip it by default or only when the called function demands 
it?

 

-- 
... <IXOYE><

"Simen kjaeraas" <simen.kjaras gmail.com> writes:

Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote:

 (b) Promote a change in the compiler to convert immutable(T[]) to  
 immutable(T)[] when passed by value into a function. This is safe and  
 sensible.

This absolutely seems sensiblest. Vote++;

-- 
Simen

"Simen kjaeraas" <simen.kjaras gmail.com> writes:

Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote:

 (b) Promote a change in the compiler to convert immutable(T[]) to  
 immutable(T)[] when passed by value into a function. This is safe and  
 sensible.

This absolutely seems sensiblest. Vote++;

-- 
Simen

"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:

On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 20:41:48 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu  
<SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote:

 (b) Promote a change in the compiler to convert immutable(T[]) to  
 immutable(T)[] when passed by value into a function. This is safe and  
 sensible.

I think this works well.

Same goes for const and shared.

-Steve

Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeiros+spam com.gmail> writes:

On 10/06/2010 01:41, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 (b) Promote a change in the compiler to convert immutable(T[]) to
 immutable(T)[] when passed by value into a function. This is safe and
 sensible.

tailconst strikes back? :]

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer