shared int[] foo;
auto bar() {
	foo ~= 42;
	return foo.idup;
}
Error: cannot implicitly convert element type shared(int) to immutable in foo.idup

Is this not correct? If I instead dup'd an array of ints (or some other non-reference elements) and cast to immutable, would I be in danger of undefined behavior?

On Tuesday, 19 August 2014 at 17:56:31 UTC, Low Functioning wrote:
> shared int[] foo;
> auto bar() {
> 	foo ~= 42;
> 	return foo.idup;
> }
> Error: cannot implicitly convert element type shared(int) to immutable in foo.idup
>
> Is this not correct? If I instead dup'd an array of ints (or some other non-reference elements) and cast to immutable, would I be in danger of undefined behavior?

Try upgrading you compiler to the just released 2.067, it works for me with that version.

On Tuesday, 19 August 2014 at 19:00:49 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
> On Tuesday, 19 August 2014 at 17:56:31 UTC, Low Functioning wrote:
>> shared int[] foo;
>> auto bar() {
>> 	foo ~= 42;
>> 	return foo.idup;
>> }
>> Error: cannot implicitly convert element type shared(int) to immutable in foo.idup
>>
>> Is this not correct? If I instead dup'd an array of ints (or some other non-reference elements) and cast to immutable, would I be in danger of undefined behavior?
>
> Try upgrading you compiler to the just released 2.067, it works for me with that version.

Actually, it's 2.066, but regardless, dup and idup were turned into free functions, so that will probably fix some bugs where they didn't work with shared or weren't nothrow or somesuch (or if it doesn't, it puts them one step closer to it).

- Jonathan M Davis