On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 17:51:26 +0300, Steven Schveighoffer
<schvei...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The implicit static array is the problem, not the assigning of a dynamic
array from a static array.
Not quite true. Here is your example slightly modified:
int[] foo()
{
int[3] staticArray;
int[] dynamicArray = staticArray;
return dynamicArray;
}
It doesn't involve any array literals, but the problem is still there.
The literal doesn't look like it's a static array.
It really does to me. [a, b, c] is essentially 3 stack pushes and nothing
else (which is the same as allocating stack space for a static array of 3
elements).
This is already available by using a static array explicitly.
How would you initialize such a static array with 3 given elements (a, b
and c). I certainly wouldn't love verbosity of
int[3] array = void;
array[0] = a;
array[1] = b;
array[2] = c;
The question is, what should be the default? I think making it
immutable and non-static is the right choice because it can always
escape scope, and does not require an allocation.
You can't make [a, b, c] immutable unless all of the a, b and c are
immutable (or primitive types). For example, what type would that be:
Object a = new Object();
Object b = new Object();
Object c = new Object();
auto array = [a, b, c];
It certainly can't be immutable(Object)[]. I believe it shouldn't be
Object[] either (you can always make a dynamic array out of static but not
vice versa). What bonuses would does Object[] provide over Object[3]?
Object[] doesn't prevent but rather *encourages* escaping reference,
because D returns static array by values:
// Your preferred way:
Object[] toArray(Object a, Object b, Object c)
{
return [a, b, c]; // Bug, escaping reference to stack data
}
// My suggestion
Object[3] toArray(Object a, Object b, Object c)
{
return [a, b, c]; // Correct
}
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
This is just an annoyance error. What will happen is people will
constantly just use the brackets to shut up the compiler without
thinking about what it really means.
<sarcasm>Sure, just hide the bug without compiler worrying you about
presence of one. </sarcasm>
You suggestion encourages unsafe by default, which is bad bad bad. It just
shouldn't compile. People should just use .dup if they need a dynamic
array unless they *really* know what they are doing, and use []. It should
never happen in SafeD, and probably not even allowed.
