On Wednesday, 18 July 2012 at 13:32:39 UTC,
trav...@phare.normalesup.org (Christophe Travert) wrote:
I think opIndex should return by reference. opIndexAssign is of
no help
when the user want to use a function that takes a reference
(here
Array.insert).
Having already brought this up before, the answer to that is that
the containers inside "container" are meant to be "closed" and
not give access to the addresses of their internals, so the
return by value is on purpose:
Here is Andrei's post about this:
http://forum.dlang.org/thread/ceftaiklanejfhodb...@forum.dlang.org?page=2#post-jthdko:24231u:241:40digitalmars.com
That said, I had brought up the exact same issue here:
http://forum.dlang.org/thread/bkozswmsgeibarowf...@forum.dlang.org
It is normal that Array uses default construction when
someone increases the array's length.
Besides that point, I don't see why default-constructed Array
have an
uninitialised Payload. This makes uninitialised Array behaves
unexpectedly, because making a copy and using the copy will not
affect
the original, which is not the intended reference value
behavior.
I think it would be better to "initialize on copy", rather than
default initialize. There are too many cases an empty array is
created, then initialized on the next line, or passed to
something else that does the initialization proper.
You'd get the correct behavior, and everything else (except dupe)
works fine anyways.
