On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 13:19:25 -0500 bearophile <bearophileh...@lycos.com> wrote:
> Steven Schveighoffer: > > > Then you just wasted time duping that argument. Instead of a defensive > > dup, what if we had a function ensureHeaped (better name suggestions?) > > I have created a bug report to avoid this whole pair of threads to be lost in > the dusts of time: > http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5212 > > Feel free to add a note about your ensureHeaped() idea at the end of that > enhancement request :-) > > (To that enhancement request I have not added my idea of the @onheap > attribute because I think it's too much complex to implement according to the > design style of the D compiler). > > Bye, > bearophile I was the one bitten by the bug. I think it's really a naughty feature, was about to create a bug entry when saw Bearophile's post. In my opinion, if void f(int[] ints) {doWhateverWith(ints);} works, then void f(int[] ints...) {doWhateverWith(ints);} must just work as well. I consider variadic args as just syntactic honey for clients of a func, type, lib. There should be no visible semantic difference, even less bugs (and certainly not segfault when the code does not manually play with memory!). But I may have wrong expectations about this feature in D, due to how variadics work in other languages I have used. It was hard to debug even with the help of 3 experienced D programmers. Denis -- -- -- -- -- -- -- vit esse estrany ☣ spir.wikidot.com
