The following doesn`t work:
immutable(string[]) strArr = new string[](10);
But I feel that it probably should work. I know we have
assumeUnique, but I remember awhile ago that some work was done
toward making the result of unique expressions (like those using
new) implicitly convertible to im
On 01/05/2014 05:19 PM, Meta wrote:> The following doesn`t work:
>
> immutable(string[]) strArr = new string[](10);
A pure function is a workaround. The return value of a pure function is
implicitly convertible to immutable:
pure string[] foo()
{
return new string[](10);
}
void main()
{
On Monday, 6 January 2014 at 04:10:04 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 01/05/2014 05:19 PM, Meta wrote:> The following doesn`t work:
>
> immutable(string[]) strArr = new string[](10);
A pure function is a workaround. The return value of a pure
function is implicitly convertible to immutable:
pure s
On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 12:01:33AM +, Meta wrote:
[...]
> Also, is there any hack that I can use to build an AA at compile time?
> I have a module level variable that's a string[][string] and I'd like
> to initialize it without resorting to static this.
Unfortunately, this is currently impossi
