Re: Logical const

[Andrej Mitrovic]

On 11/30/10, Simen kjaeraas <simen.kja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Simen kjaeraas <simen.kja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It works in many cases, but not for function calls
>
> Some more testing brought this bug to my attention:
>
> void bar( ref int n ) {
>      n++;
> }
>
> void main( string[] args ) {
>      const int n = args.length * 0;
>      assert( is( typeof( n ) == const(int) ) );
>      bar( n ); // Uhm...
>      assert( n == 1 ); // WTF?!?
> }
>
>
> I would say this is seriously bad.
> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5291
>
>
> --
> Simen
>

It seems this is a problem with ref. If you use "in" the compiler gets
some of its senses back:

void bar( in int n )
{
    n++;
}

void main( string[] args )
{
    const int n = args.length * 0;
    assert( is( typeof( n ) == const(int) ) );
    bar( n ); // compile error
    assert( n == 1 );
}