I don't know if I believe this is necesarrily bad. It's revealing some
bad coding on your part.
You shouldn't be doing opEquals with an rvalue of a class. Make
getFoo return a reference.
ref Foo getFoo() {} fixes the problem and avoids value-copying for no
reason to an rvalue that's going to get garbage collected.
-lws
On 2009-12-12 07:14:50 -0800, dsimcha <dsim...@yahoo.com> said:
I've noticed that, for DMD 2.037, we've started mandating that the input
parameter for struct opEquals be const ref T. This seemed like a good idea
initially, but it creates the horribly leaky abstraction that the right-hand
argument to opEquals can't be an rvalue. Example:
struct Foo {
bool opEquals(const ref Foo rhs) const { // Only signature
// that compiles.
return true;
}
}
Foo getFoo() {
return Foo();
}
void main() {
Foo foo = getFoo();
bool isEqual = foo == getFoo();
}
Error: Foo.opEquals type signature should be const bool(ref const(Foo)) not
const bool(Foo rhs)
Will this be getting fixed witht he new operator overloading?
