Is this a bug?

	import std.stdio;
	void main() {
		immutable(int)[4] a;
		immutable(int[4]) b;
		writeln(typeid(a));
		writeln(typeid(b));
	}

Output:

	immutable(int[4])
	immutable(int[4])

So there's no tail-const type for static arrays?

More to the point, how should AA's with immutable static array keys be implemented? The current implementation doesn't work at all because the input static array can't be assigned to the Slot (the static array field in Slot is completely immutable, even from the Slot ctor???).


T

-- 
It is widely believed that reinventing the wheel is a waste of time; but I disagree: without wheel reinventers, we would be still be stuck with wooden horse-cart wheels.

"H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote in message news:mailman.803.1331956296.4860.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
> Is this a bug?
>
> import std.stdio;
> void main() {
> immutable(int)[4] a;
> immutable(int[4]) b;
> writeln(typeid(a));
> writeln(typeid(b));
> }
>
> Output:
>
> immutable(int[4])
> immutable(int[4])
>
> So there's no tail-const type for static arrays?
>
> More to the point, how should AA's with immutable static array keys be implemented? The current implementation doesn't work at all because the input static array can't be assigned to the Slot (the static array field in Slot is completely immutable, even from the Slot ctor???).
>
>
> T
>
> -- 
> It is widely believed that reinventing the wheel is a waste of time; but I disagree: without wheel reinventers, we would be still be stuck with wooden horse-cart wheels.

This is correct.  It's the same as for primitive types.  Because they implicitly convert to immutable, AAs should store a mutable copy.  T[N] should be handled almost the same as T.