On 11/14/2011 09:27 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 11/14/2011 01:02 AM, bearophile wrote:
Jonathan M Davis:
import std.algorithm;
void main() {
enum a = [3, 1, 2];
enum s = sort(a);
assert(equal(a, [3, 1, 2]));
assert(equal(s, [1, 2, 3]));
}
It's not a bug. Those an manifest constants. They're copy-pasted into
whatever
code you used them in. So,
enum a = [3, 1, 2];
enum s = sort(a);
is equivalent to
enum a = [3, 1, 2];
enum s = sort([3, 1, 2]);
You are right, there's no DMD bug here. Yet, it's a bit surprising to
sort in-place a "constant". I have to stop thinking of them as
constants. I don't like this design of enums...
It is the right design. Why should enum imply const or immutable? (or
inout, for that matter). They are completely orthogonal.
enum Enum{
opt1,
opt2,
}
void main(){
auto moo = Enum.opt1;
moo = Enum.opt2; // who would seriously want an error here???
}
enum a = [1,2,3];
void main(){
auto x = a;
x = [2,1,3]; // ditto
}
On the other hand this gives the error message I was looking for,
until today I didn't even think about const enums:
import std.algorithm;
const enum a = [1, 2];
void main() {
sort(a);
}
So I guess I'll start using "cont enum" and "immutable enum" instead
of enums :-)
You can do that, but they are not a full replacement. How would you get
a sorted version of such an enum, for instance? =)
(.dup, obviously.)
