Hi,
I looked at Bug #6153 (Array!(Array!int) failure) and found that the
reason is the following behavior:
Given some type T you wrap as RefCounted!T object, then proper use of
the auto-initialization feature or manual initialization on demand
ensures that no null-pointer dereference will happen.
Matthias Walter , dans le message (digitalmars.D:172673), a écrit :
> I looked at Bug #6153 (Array!(Array!int) failure) and found that the
>
> This exactly is what makes the following code fail:
>
> Array!(Array!int) array2d;
> array2d.length = 1;
> array2d[0].insert(1);
>
> The inner array "arra
I see you found the appropriate entry to discuss this bug:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6153
On 07/18/2012 03:32 PM, Christophe Travert wrote:
> Matthias Walter , dans le message (digitalmars.D:172673), a écrit :
>> I looked at Bug #6153 (Array!(Array!int) failure) and found that the
>>
>> This exactly is what makes the following code fail:
>>
>> Array!(Array!int) array2d;
>> array2d.lengt
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,
"monarch_dodra" , dans le message (digitalmars.D:172700), a écrit :
> 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 initial
On 07/19/2012 10:14 AM, Christophe Travert wrote:
> "monarch_dodra" , dans le message (digitalmars.D:172700), a écrit :
>> 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 lin
On Thursday, 19 July 2012 at 08:14:25 UTC,
trav...@phare.normalesup.org (Christophe Travert) wrote:
"monarch_dodra" , dans le message (digitalmars.D:172700), a
écrit :
I think it would be better to "initialize on copy", rather
than default initialize. There are too many cases an empty
array is
"monarch_dodra" , dans le message (digitalmars.D:172710), a écrit :
> One of the reason the implementation doesn't let you escape a
> reference is that that reference may become (_unverifiably_)
> invalid.
The same applies to a dynamic array: it is undistinguishable from a
sliced static array.
On 07/19/2012 02:16 PM, Christophe Travert wrote:
> "monarch_dodra" , dans le message (digitalmars.D:172710), a écrit :
>> One of the reason the implementation doesn't let you escape a
>> reference is that that reference may become (_unverifiably_)
>> invalid.
>
> The same applies to a dynamic a
10 matches
Mail list logo
