On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 12:58:26 +0000 Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> Or how about: Every side effect is evaluated LTR. So whatever you do, > don't have LHS-altering side-effects on the RHS. It may be over the > top to explain simply that it is questionable and potentially wrong to > assume that things happen in a given order. But you may not be too > far off the mark to explain that when the need for an explicit order > is required, do it yourself. Avoid surprises. the thing is that dynamic arrays tries to disguise themselves as static arrays. so programmer have not only to know the compiler internals to explain what's going on, but he have to track all types by himself. this is bad for all means. if such assigns will be left untouched, this will inevitably lead to subtle bugs that are really hard to find. if such assigns will be forbidden only for dynamic arrays, any sane person will question that. "so i can do this for char[4] and can't do this for char[]? and why do you have the same syntax for completely different things then?" if such assigns will be forbidden for any arrays... this is even worse. "what? your shiny language can't do what even the simpliest C compiler can do? now try to convince me that D is not a toy."
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
