Timon Gehr:
The point was that the code you gave should work even without
your proposed enhancement.
So my original question was: do you remember if Hara has already
written a patch to fix that bug? :-)
Bye,
bearophile
On 11/10/2012 05:21 PM, bearophile wrote:
Timon Gehr:
It is strongly pure regardless of potential aliasing in the return
value. This is a bug.
This can't be strongly pure:
int[] foo2(int[] a) pure {
a[0]++;
return a;
}
Bye,
bearophile
The point was that the code you gave shoul
Timon Gehr:
It is strongly pure regardless of potential aliasing in the
return value. This is a bug.
This can't be strongly pure:
int[] foo2(int[] a) pure {
a[0]++;
return a;
}
Bye,
bearophile
Do you remember if Hara has implemented a patch to allow a2 to be
immutable?
int[] foo1(int x) pure {
return null;
}
int[] foo2(string s) pure {
return null;
}
void main() {
immutable a1 = foo1(10); // OK
immutable a2 = foo2("hello"); // currently error
}
The idea behind this
On 11/10/2012 03:32 PM, bearophile wrote:
Do you remember if Hara has implemented a patch to allow a2 to be
immutable?
int[] foo1(int x) pure {
return null;
}
int[] foo2(string s) pure {
return null;
}
void main() {
immutable a1 = foo1(10); // OK
immutable a2 = foo2("hello")
