On Friday, December 19, 2014 09:47:43 Shachar Shemesh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On 17/12/14 17:02, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Wednesday, 17 December 2014 at 13:13:43 UTC, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
It just seems like extra unneeded superfluous unnecessary redundancy.
It is somewhat important
On 17/12/14 17:02, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Wednesday, 17 December 2014 at 13:13:43 UTC, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
It just seems like extra unneeded superfluous unnecessary redundancy.
It is somewhat important because storing a slice to a static array is a
big problem:
Any time you pass by
The subject pretty much says it all.
If I have a function:
void function(int[] arr);
I'd like to be able to call it with:
int[12] a;
function(a);
I know I can do:
function(a[]);
It just seems like extra unneeded superfluous unnecessary redundancy. I
don't see any static typing
Shachar Shemesh:
The subject pretty much says it all.
If I have a function:
void function(int[] arr);
I'd like to be able to call it with:
int[12] a;
function(a);
I know I can do:
function(a[]);
It just seems like extra unneeded superfluous unnecessary
redundancy. I don't see any static
On Wednesday, 17 December 2014 at 13:13:43 UTC, Shachar Shemesh
wrote:
It just seems like extra unneeded superfluous unnecessary
redundancy.
It is somewhat important because storing a slice to a static
array is a big problem:
int[] stored;
void func(int[] s) {
stored = s;
}
void test()
Adam D. Ruppe:
the compiler DOES allow this implicit conversion at times,
which has caused my bugs before.
We will hopefully have some simplified kind of tracking of memory
ownership to remove this problem.
Bye,
bearophile
