Denis Koroskin wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 22:13:50 +0400, Tomas Lindquist Olsen
<tomas.l.ol...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 6:07 PM, MLT <n...@anon.com> wrote:
2. char[] vs. int[]
I think it is strange that
char[] x = "1234" ;
x[0] = '4' ;
Produces a run time error, but
int[] x = [1,2,3,4] ;
x[0] = 4 ;
Doesn't. I think that they both should, or both shouldn't - to be
consistent (and it would be better if they both didn't). Best would be
again, to allow the programmer to specify where the array (or other
stuff) should be stored.
It pretty much boils down to this (mostly said in other replies)
* string literals are special, they are allocated in a static data
segment, readonly if the platform allows it.
* arrayliterals as non-static expressions are always heap allocated.
even when there's absolute no need for it... (see
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2356 )
-Tomas
Someone ought to post a feature request to make arrayliterals immutable by
default (D2 only, I don't think this change will go to D1 anyway) and don't
heap-allocate them every time they're used:
int[] x1 = [1,2,3,4]; // error: can't assign immutable(int)[] to int[]
Why not auto-allocate? Writing that .dup all the time is going to be
annoying. Just implicitly convert it from immutable to mutable by copying.
int[] x2 = [1,2,3,4].dup; // okay, allocates
int[4] x3 = [1,2,3,4]; // okay, doesn't allocate
foreach (int i; [1,2,3,4]) { // okay, doesn't allocate
// ...
}
