Can't remember if I raised this before (it was loitering among the testcases from my last peek at D), but it's still true in 0.174. "Derived[] to Base[]" assignments really shouldn't happen without either a copy or an explit cast.

---

class Fruit {};
class Apple : Fruit {};
class Orange : Fruit {};

void main()
{
	Apple[] apples;
	apples.length = 3;
	Fruit[] fruits = apples;
	Orange orange = new Orange;
	fruits[1] = orange;

	if (apples[1] == orange) printf("Oops.\n");
}

Mike Capp wrote:
> Can't remember if I raised this before (it was loitering among the testcases
> from my last peek at D), but it's still true in 0.174. "Derived[] to Base[]"
> assignments really shouldn't happen without either a copy or an explit cast.
> 
> ---
> 
> class Fruit {};
> class Apple : Fruit {};
> class Orange : Fruit {};
> 
> void main()
> {
> 	Apple[] apples;
> 	apples.length = 3;
> 	Fruit[] fruits = apples;
> 	Orange orange = new Orange;
> 	fruits[1] = orange;
> 
> 	if (apples[1] == orange) printf("Oops.\n");
> }

No, purposeful, contrived subversion of the type system subverts the type system.

 - Gregor Richards

Gregor Richards wrote:
> No, purposeful, contrived subversion of the type
> system subverts the type system.

Purposeful, contrived subversion of the type system should be marked as such with a cast, IMHO. That's what casts are for. It's hardly a burden for the programmer, and it prevents accidents.

This crops up in basic OO FAQs for a reason. It's a real mistake that real people make.

void eatFruit(Fruit[] yum) { ... }

void pickApples()
{
    Apple[] a;
    for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) { a ~= new Apple(); }
    eatFruit(a); // nope, can't eat it, it's Apples, not fruit
}