Simen kjaeraas Wrote:
> Steven Schveighoffer <schvei...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Except the language says what results from your code (casting away const
> > and then mutating) is undefined behavior. This means all bets are off,
> > it can crash your program. I'm unsure how the compiler could take that
> > route, but that's what's in the spec.
> >
> > Maybe because of the way const works, it never really is undefined, but
> > there will always be that loophole.
>
> The thing is, immutable is implicitly castable to const, and immutable
> data could be stored in write-protected memory. Apart from that, I believe
> it is safe to cast away const.
>
> --
> Simen
In fact, couldn't opAssign be
ref opAssign(U)(auto ref U v) if(Unqual!U == U)
{
return mutable() = v;
}
This way only mutable references are only ever assigned to it? Then it can be
marked as @trusted and used in safe code as it will never cause the program to
crash?
