On 02/02/2011 07:41 PM, spir wrote:
On 02/02/2011 07:05 PM, bearophile wrote:
spir:
* The issue reported is about '==' on structs not using member opEquals when
defined, instead performing bitwise comparison. This is not my case: Lexeme
members are plain strings and an uint. They should just be compared as is.
Bitwise comparison should just work fine.
Also, this issue is marked solved for dmd 2.037 (I use 2.051).
Lars is right, the == among structs is broken still:
struct Foo { string s; }
void main() {
string s1 = "he";
string s2 = "llo";
string s3 = "hel";
string s4 = "lo";
auto f1 = Foo(s1 ~ s2);
auto f2 = Foo(s3 ~ s4);
assert((s1 ~ s2) == (s3 ~ s4));
assert(f1 == f2);
}
Thank you, this helps much. I don't get the details yet, but think some similar
issue is playing a role in my case. String members of the compared Lexeme
structs are not concatenated, but one of them is sliced from the scanned source.
If I dup'ed instead of slicing, this would create brand new strings; thus '=='
performing bitwise comp should run fine, don't you think? I'll try in a short
while.
No! idup does not help, still need opEquals. See also this example case:
struct S {string s;}
unittest {
// concat
string s1 = "he"; string s2 = "llo";
string s3 = "hel"; string s4 = "lo";
assert ( S(s1 ~ s2) != S(s3 ~ s4) );
// slice
string s = "hello";
assert ( S(s[1..$-1]) != S("ell") );
// idup'ed
assert ( S(s[1..$-1].idup) != S("ell") );
s2 = s[1..$-1].idup;
assert ( S(s2) != S("ell") );
}
Denis
--
_________________
vita es estrany
spir.wikidot.com
