On 22.11.2014 20:30, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 08:07:31 -0800
"H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d-learn"
<digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com> wrote:
On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 05:57:30PM +0200, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 15:45:51 +0000
Eric via Digitalmars-d-learn<digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com> wrote:
Maybe this is not so lame because change() can take
any length of static array.
void change (int[] arr) {
arr[1] = 42;
}
void main () {
int[$] a = [1, 2, 3];
change(a);
This is actually really scary that static arrays implicitly decay to a
dynamic array slice. It can cause all sorts of problems with escaping
dangling references to local variables:
i don't even want to argue with that. ;-) just 'cause i'm sure that you
are right, and this code shouldn't compile at all without explicit
slicing of `a`.
but this is what we have now, and i bet it will stay with us, 'cause
"changing that will break alot of correct D code". so if we can't
annihilate it, let's use it! ;-)
Does it worth to make some compiler option that for example prohibits
passing static array instead of dynamic one without slicing? Who has a
lot of breakable correct D code doesn't use it, but others do if they want?
