On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 00:46:05 +0300, Steven Schveighoffer
<schvei...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 16:17:50 -0500, Denis Koroskin <2kor...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 18:42:16 +0300, Michel Fortin
<michel.for...@michelf.com> wrote:
Consider this case:
int a, b, c;
int[] array;
array ~= [a, b, c];
array ~= toArray(a, b, c);
Does it make sense to heap-allocate the mutable array? Hardly. With
the literal, the compiler is free to optimize away the heap
allocation, not so with toArray.
[a, b, c] could result in a static array. Then there wouldn't even be a
need for toArray, just use more natural int[] arr = [a, b, c].dup;
syntax
That would be bad, T[] is implicitly casted from T[N]. Consider that
you could easily escape stack data using this. In other words, the type
system would allow the assignment without the dup.
-Steve
I don't think so. First of all, it is consistent with current behavior:
int[] foo()
{
int[3] staticArray = [0, 1, 2];
int[] dynamicArray = staticArray;
return dynamicArray;
}
int[] a = foo();
writeln(a); // prints garbage
Second, it's very useful to prevent unnecessary heap allocations.
I would prefer static arrays not to cast to dynamic ones implicitly, but
using opSlice syntax instead:
int[] arr = [0, 1, 2]; // error
int[] arr = [0, 1, 2][]; // fine, use on your own risk
