It seems that it isn't possible, am I missing something?
alias Q = int[int*];
pragma(msg, Q); // int[const(int)*]
Also, is this documented somewhere?
Thread overview | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
April 10, 2023 mutable pointers as associative array keys | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
It seems that it isn't possible, am I missing something? alias Q = int[int*]; Also, is this documented somewhere? |
April 10, 2023 Re: mutable pointers as associative array keys | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to John Colvin | On Monday, 10 April 2023 at 18:14:56 UTC, John Colvin wrote: >It seems that it isn't possible, am I missing something? alias Q = int[int*]; Also, is this documented somewhere? It seems to be so (which is strange) and I can't image it is by design since you
|
April 10, 2023 Re: mutable pointers as associative array keys | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to John Colvin | On 4/10/23 2:14 PM, John Colvin wrote: >It seems that it isn't possible, am I missing something? alias Q = int[int*]; Yep, it's been that way forever. Only with pointers and arrays. It's fine with mutable classes and structs (even if they contain pointers). >Also, is this documented somewhere? No. It's also completely useless. Having const keys does nothing to guarantee unchanging keys. Another half-assed attempt to be encode correct semantics but fails completely in its goal. -Steve |
April 10, 2023 Re: mutable pointers as associative array keys | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Steven Schveighoffer | On 4/10/23 4:25 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: > It's also completely useless. Having const keys does nothing to guarantee unchanging keys. Another half-assed attempt to be encode correct semantics but fails completely in its goal. In case you wonder how old this is: https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11477 https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12491#c2 -Steve |
April 11, 2023 Re: mutable pointers as associative array keys | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Steven Schveighoffer | On Monday, 10 April 2023 at 20:31:43 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On 4/10/23 4:25 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> It's also completely useless. Having const keys does nothing to guarantee unchanging keys. Another half-assed attempt to be encode correct semantics but fails completely in its goal.
>
> In case you wonder how old this is:
>
> https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11477
> https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12491#c2
>
> -Steve
Oh dear.
|