http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2082

           Summary: Cannot convert char[] to string
           Product: D
           Version: 2.012
          Platform: PC
        OS/Version: Linux
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: DMD
        AssignedTo: bugzilla@digitalmars.com
        ReportedBy: jlquinn@optonline.net


This is really ugly.  The following program:

void test(char[] s) {
  string t = s;
}

gives the following error:

junk2.d(2): Error: cannot implicitly convert expression (s) of type char[] to
invariant(char)[]

I haven't found a way around this yet.  It really should be handled as an implicit conversion, with a copy being made under the covers as needed.


-- 

Reply to d-bugmail@puremagic.com,

> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2082
> 
> Summary: Cannot convert char[] to string
> Product: D
> Version: 2.012
> Platform: PC
> OS/Version: Linux
> Status: NEW
> Severity: normal
> Priority: P2
> Component: DMD
> AssignedTo: bugzilla@digitalmars.com
> ReportedBy: jlquinn@optonline.net
> This is really ugly.  The following program:
> 
> void test(char[] s) {
> string t = s;
> }
> gives the following error:
> 
> junk2.d(2): Error: cannot implicitly convert expression (s) of type
> char[] to invariant(char)[]
> 
> I haven't found a way around this yet.  It really should be handled as
> an implicit conversion, with a copy being made under the covers as
> needed.
> 

I think you need to use .idup

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2082





------- Comment #2 from jlquinn@optonline.net  2008-05-08 17:23 -------
To me, this seems like it's going to clutter commonly occurring code.  Since char[] and string are similar, and the language is generally trying to treat them like built-in types, I would hope this kind of conversion was transparent most of the time.


-- 

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2082


kamm-removethis@incasoftware.de changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |INVALID




------- Comment #3 from kamm-removethis@incasoftware.de  2008-05-09 01:02 -------
This is desired behaviour. Use idup() to make a new invariant copy or use a
cast (via assumeUnique from std.contracts?) if you can guarantee the data is
invariant.


-- 

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2082





------- Comment #4 from kamm-removethis@incasoftware.de  2008-05-09 01:03 -------
*** Bug 2083 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***


--