http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6923

           Summary: Not restrictive initialization semantics
           Product: D
           Version: D2
          Platform: x86
        OS/Version: Windows
            Status: NEW
          Severity: minor
          Priority: P2
         Component: DMD
        AssignedTo: nobody@puremagic.com
        ReportedBy: bearophile_hugs@eml.cc


--- Comment #0 from bearophile_hugs@eml.cc 2011-11-09 19:56:08 PST ---
This is not exactly a bug report, it's just an example of code that shows a possible design/implementation problem.

Code by Timon Gehr: http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=148455

A comment:

> I think the current initialization semantics are not restrictive enough.

-------------------------

immutable(int)* p;

void foo() { // checks if values pointed to by p are really immutable
    static int[immutable(int)*] mem;

    if (p !in mem)
        mem[p] = *p;
    else
        assert(mem[p] == *p); // fail.
}

struct Foo {
    immutable int x;

    this(int y) {
        p = &x;
        foo();
        x = 1;
        foo();
    }
}

void main() {
    Foo(2);
}

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------