Hello. I still haven't wrapped my mind around the const/immutable thing yet
and am still stuck in C/C++ mode. :-(
A function that takes mutable arguments cannot be called with immutable
input at the call site since it does not promise to *not* mutate the input.
That's of course clear.
Why
Shriramana Sharma píše v Pá 16. 10. 2015 v 16:05 +0530:
> Hello. I still haven't wrapped my mind around the const/immutable
> thing yet
> and am still stuck in C/C++ mode. :-(
>
> A function that takes mutable arguments cannot be called with
> immutable
> input at the call site since it does
On Friday, 16 October 2015 at 10:35:23 UTC, Shriramana Sharma
wrote:
I understand that const can refer to either mutable or
immutable, so does this mean I should replace all occurrences
of `string` in arguments and return values of functions by
`const(char)[]`?
Use `inout` attribute for
On Friday, 16 October 2015 at 10:35:23 UTC, Shriramana Sharma
wrote:
Hello. I still haven't wrapped my mind around the
const/immutable thing yet and am still stuck in C/C++ mode. :-(
A function that takes mutable arguments cannot be called with
immutable input at the call site since it does
On Friday, 16 October 2015 at 12:48:42 UTC, Meta wrote:
This doesn't work for char because it has indirections (a
pointer to its data).
Whoops, should be char[], not char.
On Friday, 16 October 2015 at 10:35:23 UTC, Shriramana Sharma
wrote:
Hello. I still haven't wrapped my mind around the
const/immutable thing yet and am still stuck in C/C++ mode. :-(
A function that takes mutable arguments cannot be called with
immutable input at the call site since it does
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 04:05:19PM +0530, Shriramana Sharma via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> Hello. I still haven't wrapped my mind around the const/immutable
> thing yet and am still stuck in C/C++ mode. :-(
>
> A function that takes mutable arguments cannot be called with
> immutable input at
On Friday, October 16, 2015 12:35 PM, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
> Why can't a function that takes an immutable argument be called with a
> mutable input at the call site?
>
> IOW, why isn't mutable implicitly convertible to immutable?
immutable says that the data won't ever change. If references
Ali Çehreli wrote:
http://ddili.org/ders/d.en/const_and_immutable.html#ix_const_and_immutable.parameter,
%20const%20vs.%20immutable
Hi Ali – I take this chance to personally thank you sincerely for your book
which provides much-needed hand-holding in my baby D-steps. I did read that
chapter
On 10/16/2015 07:02 PM, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
> your book which provides
I am glad that it is useful. :)
> My question was however to the root of the issue, as to *why* the
compiler
> cannot consider mutable as immutable just like in C/C++ any non-const
can be
> taken as const.
Ali Çehreli wrote:
> Actually, others gave the answer to that question, which was apparently
> not very clear. :)
Yes it was clear and I did understand it: and I posted a reply thanking the
others too, but for some reason it was still sitting in my outbox...
--
Shriramana Sharma, Penguin
Thanks all, for your kind explanations.
Would then constString (for const(char)[]) and inoutString (for inout(char)
[]) be useful aliases if included in the runtime?
--
Shriramana Sharma, Penguin #395953
On Saturday, 17 October 2015 at 02:03:01 UTC, Shriramana Sharma
wrote:
Ali Çehreli wrote:
http://ddili.org/ders/d.en/const_and_immutable.html#ix_const_and_immutable.parameter,
%20const%20vs.%20immutable
Hi Ali – I take this chance to personally thank you sincerely
for your book which
On 10/16/2015 03:35 AM, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
Hello. I still haven't wrapped my mind around the const/immutable thing yet
and am still stuck in C/C++ mode. :-(
Welcome to the club! :) You can read my understanding of the issue at
the following link:
14 matches
Mail list logo
