Re: What am I missing? Pure constructor behaves differently when assigning string member
On Saturday, 29 November 2014 at 09:41:00 UTC, jostly wrote: I can't find a way to use a pure constructor to create both mutable and immutable instances of the same class, when one of the fields I assign is a string. [...] The question is: am I missing something that would make it possible to use a pure constructor in this case, or is it simply not possible? I ran some tests, as far as I can tell, they should all work: mixin template test(T) { class C { T value; this(T value_) pure {this.value = value_;} } static assert(is(typeof({auto c = new C(T.init);}))); static if(!is(typeof(new immutable C(T.init pragma(msg, T, ": immutable construction fails"); static if(!is(typeof({immutable c = new C(T.init);}))) pragma(msg, T, ": unique construction fails"); } /* No indirections (and no (d/w)char): all fine */ mixin test!int; mixin test!(int[3]); /* With indirections: immutable construction fails unique construction works */ mixin test!string; mixin test!(immutable int[]); mixin test!(immutable Object); mixin test!(immutable int*); /* No indirections, but (d/w)char: immutable construction works unique construction fails Wat. */ mixin test!dchar; mixin test!wchar; mixin test!char; mixin test!(dchar[3]);
Re: What am I missing? Pure constructor behaves differently when assigning string member
On Saturday, 29 November 2014 at 09:41:00 UTC, jostly wrote: I can't find a way to use a pure constructor to create both mutable and immutable instances of the same class, when one of the fields I assign is a string. After poking around a bit, I believe it is caused by issue #10012 https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10012 : "This is current dmd implementation limitation. In complex cases dmd cannot detect that the constructor generates unique object." So my question then becomes, how can I generate an unique object from the string? I tried using .idup on the incoming string, but that didn't help. Or is it simply still a problem of _detecting_ it for the compiler?
What am I missing? Pure constructor behaves differently when assigning string member
I can't find a way to use a pure constructor to create both mutable and immutable instances of the same class, when one of the fields I assign is a string. This works fine: class A { int value; this(int value_) pure { this.value = value_; } } auto a_mutable = new A(1); auto a_immutable = new immutable A(2); But if I change the field to a string, I get a compilation error: class B { string value; this(string value_) pure { this.value = value_; } } auto b_mutable = new B("foo"); auto b_immutable = new immutable B("bar"); giving a compilation error for the last row: Error: mutable method B.this is not callable using a immutable object forcing me to use two separate constructors, which works fine: class B { string value; this(string value_) { this.value = value_; } this(string value_) immutable { this.value = value_; } } The question is: am I missing something that would make it possible to use a pure constructor in this case, or is it simply not possible?