On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 11:58:01PM -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > On 3/14/12 6:16 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote: > >- Declaring an AA with non-const array keys will cause reams and reams > > of compile errors. I'm not *too* worried about this at the moment > > since it doesn't make sense to have non-const AA keys anyway. I'm > > also seriously considering forcing *all* AA keys to be immutable, > > in which case this will become a non-issue. > > I think the built-in associative array must allow non-constant keys. > As long as there's no memory safety issue, the AA should work with > types that the user doesn't change for comparison purposes but can > otherwise modify. > > A practical matter is that if we introduce this restriction we'll > break a ton of code. [...]
Understood. But if the user changes the keys then the AA will malfunction. (This is no worse than the current behaviour, I suppose.) So now I've to track down why non-const keys trigger a ton of errors... :-/ T -- "No, John. I want formats that are actually useful, rather than over-featured megaliths that address all questions by piling on ridiculous internal links in forms which are hideously over-complex." -- Simon St. Laurent on xml-dev