On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 03:34, strtr
<strtr@spam.com> wrote:
Ellery Newcomer Wrote:
> I just noticed that dup does not dup deep.
>
> In a two second search I couldn't find any reason for or against, but
> I'd kinda like it if
>
> auto r2 = r.dup;
> r2[i][j] = 0;
> r[i][j] = 1;
> assert(r2[i][j] != r[i][j]);
>
> held.
There have been discussions about this before.
Here is the first I found (couldn't find my own .ddup request :)
http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=12631
I sent a proposal for deep dup a few hours after your discussion, bu no one commented on it. And now I can't find it... hmm. Maybe the mail didn't make it.