https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11240
Stanislav Blinov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11240
Stanislav Blinov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||stanislav.bli...@gmail.com
--- Comment #5
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=11240
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan M Davis 2013-10-13 01:44:11
PDT ---
I think that making it so that assumeSafeAppend didn't work with const or
immutable would be akin to making free not work with const or immutable. Both
function are inherently u
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=11240
Jonathan M Davis changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jmdavisp...@gmx.com
--- Comment #3
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=11240
--- Comment #2 from Kenji Hara 2013-10-13 01:18:08 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Is this valid though?
>
> assumeSafeAppend is an unsafe function that *requires* no one else have a view
> on the items after the end of the array.
>
> Jus
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=11240
monarchdo...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||monarchdo...@gmail.com
--- Co
