On 11/05/2012 12:43 PM, Dan wrote:
On Monday, 5 November 2012 at 09:10:41 UTC, Tobias Pankrath wrote:
I have not figured what to look at for associative arrays. For example,
in .../druntime/import/object.di there is a struct called
AssociativeArray which I imagine the [ "foo" : "goo" ] syntac
On Monday, 5 November 2012 at 09:10:41 UTC, Tobias Pankrath wrote:
Casting away const is okay as long as you don't change a single
bit of your data.
Yes, thanks. Makes sense. I need to know not only what I might be
mutating, but also code I call. In this specific case, though I
hope all of
On 11/05/2012 02:24 AM, Dan wrote:
Thanks. The reason I'm down this path is something like below. I really
want to keep const ref for parms on a method (e.g. foo below). It turns
out the type is a assoc array and length and keys are both giving me a
headache. Without the cast I get a message lik
On Sunday, 4 November 2012 at 21:44:15 UTC, Tobias Pankrath wrote:
I don't think that currently qualifiers work with the postblit
constructor. See here for a related discussion.
http://forum.dlang.org/thread/CAFDvkcvvL8GxHQB=Rw9pTm-uxOKzNGVQNDv9w5Os3SkQCc=d...@mail.gmail.com
Thanks. The reas
On 04.11.2012 21:49, Dan wrote:
This bug has no comments. The original says: "The fix is obvious:
redefine postblit as this(const this); but it isn't always obvious
when looking at hundreds of lines of code"
Is this accepted/correct? In the following if I include the this(const
this) postbl
This bug has no comments. The original says: "The fix is obvious:
redefine postblit as this(const this); but it isn't always obvious
when looking at hundreds of lines of code"
Is this accepted/correct? In the following if I include the
this(const
this) postblit it does not get called. It ma
