import std.stdio;
class AB{
	int A;
	int B = 2;
	int[] arrA;
	int[] arrB = [2,2,2]; // arrB is static in[]  or bug ?
	this(){
		this.A = 1;
		this.arrA=[1,1,1];
	}
}
void main(){
	AB ab1 = new AB();
	AB ab2 = new AB();
	writeln(ab1.A, " | " ,ab1.B, " | " ,ab1.arrA, " | " ,ab1.arrB);
	writeln(ab2.A, " | " ,ab2.B, " | " ,ab2.arrA, " | " ,ab2.arrB);
	writeln("change...");
	ab1.A = 10;
	ab1.B = 20;
	ab1.arrA[0] = 10;
	ab1.arrB[0] = 20; // ab2.arrB = 20  why? bug?
	writeln(ab1.A, " | " ,ab1.B, " | " ,ab1.arrA, " | " ,ab1.arrB);
	writeln(ab2.A, " | " ,ab2.B, " | " ,ab2.arrA, " | " ,ab2.arrB);
	readln();
}

On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 10:06 AM, Du Liang <duliang.21@163.com> wrote:

>        int[] arrB = [2,2,2]; // arrB is static in[]  or bug ?

Declaring the variable like this uses a single array for all instances
of AB.  You should initialize it in this() instead, or put "arrB =
arrB.dup;" in this().

On Wed, 06 May 2009 19:33:03 +0400, Jarrett Billingsley <jarrett.billingsley@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 10:06 AM, Du Liang <duliang.21@163.com> wrote:
>
>>        int[] arrB = [2,2,2]; // arrB is static in[]  or bug ?
>
> Declaring the variable like this uses a single array for all instances
> of AB.  You should initialize it in this() instead, or put "arrB =
> arrB.dup;" in this().

I believe this is a horrible inconsistency. It shouldn't be allowed in first place, because typeof([2,2,2]) is immutable(int)[] in this context.

Denis Koroskin wrote:
> On Wed, 06 May 2009 19:33:03 +0400, Jarrett Billingsley <jarrett.billingsley@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 10:06 AM, Du Liang <duliang.21@163.com> wrote:
>>
>>>        int[] arrB = [2,2,2]; // arrB is static in[]  or bug ?
>> Declaring the variable like this uses a single array for all instances
>> of AB.  You should initialize it in this() instead, or put "arrB =
>> arrB.dup;" in this().
> 
> I believe this is a horrible inconsistency. It shouldn't be allowed in first place, because typeof([2,2,2]) is immutable(int)[] in this context.

Issue 2947 Submitted

Denis Koroskin wrote:
> On Wed, 06 May 2009 19:33:03 +0400, Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
>> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 10:06 AM, Du Liang wrote:
>>
>>>        int[] arrB = [2,2,2]; // arrB is static in[]  or bug ?
>> Declaring the variable like this uses a single array for all instances
>> of AB.  You should initialize it in this() instead, or put "arrB =
>> arrB.dup;" in this().
> I believe this is a horrible inconsistency. It shouldn't be allowed
> in first place, because typeof([2,2,2]) is immutable(int)[] in this
> context.

writeln(typeof([2,2,2]).stringof);

int[3u]


A literal string seems not to be immutable.

Denis Koroskin wrote:
> On Wed, 06 May 2009 19:33:03 +0400, Jarrett Billingsley <jarrett.billingsley@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 10:06 AM, Du Liang <duliang.21@163.com> wrote:
>>
>>>        int[] arrB = [2,2,2]; // arrB is static in[]  or bug ?
>> Declaring the variable like this uses a single array for all instances
>> of AB.  You should initialize it in this() instead, or put "arrB =
>> arrB.dup;" in this().
> 
> I believe this is a horrible inconsistency. It shouldn't be allowed in first place, because typeof([2,2,2]) is immutable(int)[] in this context.

DWIM would be to let the compiler automatically move these instructions into all ctors.

class A {
   int[] arrB = [2,2,2];
   X x = new X();
   this() {
       code1();
   }
   this(int) {
       code2();
   }
}

would be transformed into

class A {
   int[] arrB;
   X x;
   this() {
       arrB = [2,2,2];
       x = new X();
       code1();
   }
   this(int) {
       arrB = [2,2,2];
       x = new X();
       code2();
   }
}

grauzone Wrote:

> Denis Koroskin wrote:
> > On Wed, 06 May 2009 19:33:03 +0400, Jarrett Billingsley <jarrett.billingsley@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 10:06 AM, Du Liang <duliang.21@163.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>        int[] arrB = [2,2,2]; // arrB is static in[]  or bug ?
> >> Declaring the variable like this uses a single array for all instances
> >> of AB.  You should initialize it in this() instead, or put "arrB =
> >> arrB.dup;" in this().
> > 
> > I believe this is a horrible inconsistency. It shouldn't be allowed in first place, because typeof([2,2,2]) is immutable(int)[] in this context.
> 
> DWIM would be to let the compiler automatically move these instructions into all ctors.
> 
> class A {
>     int[] arrB = [2,2,2];
>     X x = new X();
>     this() {
>         code1();
>     }
>     this(int) {
>         code2();
>     }
> }
> 
> would be transformed into
> 
> class A {
>     int[] arrB;
>     X x;
>     this() {
>         arrB = [2,2,2];
>         x = new X();
>         code1();
>     }
>     this(int) {
>         arrB = [2,2,2];
>         x = new X();
>         code2();
>     }
> }

Thanks!

Du Liang wrote:
> grauzone Wrote:
> 
>> Denis Koroskin wrote:
>>> On Wed, 06 May 2009 19:33:03 +0400, Jarrett Billingsley <jarrett.billingsley@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 10:06 AM, Du Liang <duliang.21@163.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>        int[] arrB = [2,2,2]; // arrB is static in[]  or bug ?
>>>> Declaring the variable like this uses a single array for all instances
>>>> of AB.  You should initialize it in this() instead, or put "arrB =
>>>> arrB.dup;" in this().
>>> I believe this is a horrible inconsistency. It shouldn't be allowed in first place, because typeof([2,2,2]) is immutable(int)[] in this context.
>> DWIM would be to let the compiler automatically move these instructions into all ctors.
>>
>> class A {
>>     int[] arrB = [2,2,2];
>>     X x = new X();
>>     this() {
>>         code1();
>>     }
>>     this(int) {
>>         code2();
>>     }
>> }
>>
>> would be transformed into
>>
>> class A {
>>     int[] arrB;
>>     X x;
>>     this() {
>>         arrB = [2,2,2];
>>         x = new X();
>>         code1();
>>     }
>>     this(int) {
>>         arrB = [2,2,2];
>>         x = new X();
>>         code2();
>>     }
>> }
> 
> Thanks!

Um... Maybe I should clarify: it does NOT work like that right now! My post was more like a feature request.