On Wednesday, 24 July 2013 at 11:26:32 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
This is the exact behavior I would expect. I think of auto as
this variable is going to be the same type as that variable.
Since in is const int, then j also is going to be const int. If
you want to copy n into a nonconst variable,
This code:
void test(const int n)
{
auto j = n;
j++;
}
Gives this error:
cannot modify const expression j
Is this considered a feature or a bug? I would assume most people
wouldn't want new variables inheriting const.
Alex H:
void test(const int n)
{
auto j = n;
j++;
}
Gives this error:
cannot modify const expression j
Is this considered a feature or a bug? I would assume most
people wouldn't want new variables inheriting const.
It's a bit annoying. I don't remember people discussing
On Wednesday, 24 July 2013 at 08:07:55 UTC, Alex H wrote:
This code:
void test(const int n)
{
auto j = n;
j++;
}
Gives this error:
cannot modify const expression j
Is this considered a feature or a bug? I would assume most
people
wouldn't want new variables inheriting
Am 24.07.2013 11:39, schrieb bearophile:
Alex H:
void test(const int n)
{
auto j = n;
j++;
}
Gives this error:
cannot modify const expression j
Is this considered a feature or a bug? I would assume most
people wouldn't want new variables inheriting const.
It's a bit
dennis luehring:
and how would it look to preserve the const if auto would
auto-rip it of?
You could write:
immutable j = n;
For every default behavour you need a way to implement the other
nicely :-)
Currently for the problem of the OP you can use this:
Unqual!(typeof(n)) j = n;
Bye,
On Wednesday, 24 July 2013 at 10:01:14 UTC, bearophile wrote:
dennis luehring:
and how would it look to preserve the const if auto would
auto-rip it of?
You could write:
immutable j = n;
For every default behavour you need a way to implement the
other nicely :-)
Currently for the
On 07/24/13 12:09, monarch_dodra wrote:
Keeping it to same type, 100% of the time seems like the best.
No, it's a design bug. The head qualifier(s) should always be stripped
when copying objects. Stripping is always fine (ie safe), not doing it
just creates other problems, like the one in OP, or
On Wednesday, 24 July 2013 at 10:37:40 UTC, Artur Skawina wrote:
On 07/24/13 12:09, monarch_dodra wrote:
Keeping it to same type, 100% of the time seems like the
best.
No, it's a design bug. The head qualifier(s) should always be
stripped
when copying objects. Stripping is always fine (ie
On Wednesday, 24 July 2013 at 08:07:55 UTC, Alex H wrote:
This code:
void test(const int n)
{
auto j = n;
j++;
}
Gives this error:
cannot modify const expression j
Is this considered a feature or a bug? I would assume most
people
wouldn't want new variables inheriting
On Wednesday, July 24, 2013 10:07:54 Alex H wrote:
This code:
void test(const int n)
{
auto j = n;
j++;
}
Gives this error:
cannot modify const expression j
Is this considered a feature or a bug? I would assume most people
wouldn't want new variables inheriting const.
The
On Wednesday, 24 July 2013 at 11:26:32 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
...
This is the exact behavior I would expect. I think of auto as
this variable is going to be the same type as that variable.
Since in is const int, then j also is going to be const int. If
you want to copy n into a nonconst
12 matches
Mail list logo
