On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 15:22:10 -0400, simendsjo
wrote:
I'm having some problems explaining it as I'm not sure about the correct
terminology (I should have drawn some pictures..), but I'll try.
The runtime doesn't track the "original" array and the slices (for this
example at least - it obv
On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 15:22:10 -0400, simendsjo
wrote:
On 05.04.2011 22:04, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> However, a does not end on the master slice, so its capacity is 0.
Note
> that technically using a[1..$] is undefined at this point since the
> runtime considers those elements 'unuse
On 05.04.2011 22:04, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 15:24:46 -0400, simendsjo
wrote:
I don't know if this is an actual problem, but I don't understand the
behavior.
When one slice calls assumeSafeAppend, both slices is "given control",
that is, gets the parents capacity.
You
On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 15:24:46 -0400, simendsjo
wrote:
I don't know if this is an actual problem, but I don't understand the
behavior.
When one slice calls assumeSafeAppend, both slices is "given control",
that is, gets the parents capacity.
You have to stop thinking of array slices as unique :
I don't know if this is an actual problem, but I don't understand the
behavior.
When one slice calls assumeSafeAppend, both slices is "given control",
that is, gets the parents capacity.
It's best explained with an example:
int[] a;
a.length = 4;
int[] b = a[0..1];
