Derek Parnell wrote:
On Sat, 07 Mar 2009 14:43:50 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:
int foo(const(char)[] s)
what if foo() keeps a private reference to s (which it might if it does
lazy evaluation)? Now I, as a caller, mutate s[] and muck up foo. So, to
fix it, I do:
foo(s.dup); // defensive copy in case foo keeps a reference to s
In foo's defence, if it takes a private reference, then it should also take
a copy.
Yup, and as I said, an extra copy "just in case".
In fact, should it be allowed to take a private reference of data
which might be modified after it returns?
Instead of adding more complexity to const so it acts more like
immutable, why not just use immutable <g> ?
