On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 00:15:12 -0400, d coder <dlang.co...@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes. Capacity is only non-zero for arrays which can safely be extended.
If
you shrink an array from length 10 to length 5, the GC is smart enough
to
know that that there may be a dangling reference to elements [5..10] and
thus if the length 5 array was appended to, it might stomp on someone
else's
data. Long ago, the GC was dumber and it caused a massive hole in the
const/immutable system. If you know that no other aliases exist (i.e.
you're
buffering, etc) you can use the function assumeSafeAppend to reset the
capacity. However, I'd strongly recommend switching to Appender whenever
you're tempted to use assumeSafeAppend.
Thanks All
I would give Appender a try. Any idea if it is safe to use this struct in
multithreaded environment. Would it be OK to add elements to it from
multiple threads -- of course I would be using synchronized code to make
sure that only one element gets added at a time. Any other precautions?
David Simcha has removed Appender from std.parallelism, due to a perceived
failure during multithreaded appends (even with locking). I don't see why
it would happen, but you may want to be cautious.
See this commit:
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/commit/5a3761baac147ff43f4dc2ce264a18ad5e4330bd#std/parallelism.d
-Steve
