Michal Minich <michal.min...@gmail.com> wrote:
from high level point of view, there is difference in const(int)[2] and
const (int [2]). One would expect that it is possible to rebind b. From
low level/implementation point - there seems to be no difference because
a and b are value types - there is not indirection.
Possible resolutions:
1. a = [1,2]; should pass and it is a bug in current implementation
2. it is not a bug, then disallow writing const(int)[n] - only full const
should be possible to use to prevent confusion.
3. it is not a bug, then update language definition to make static and
dynamic arrays constnes modifiers act the same way.
My first question is it a bug or not, then what would be good thing to
do...
It is not a bug. As you say, static arrays are value types, and thus not
rebindable. This precludes your solution #1 and #3. As for solution #2,
it is not viable for genericity reasons - T[n] should work no matter what
T is (in this case const(int)). If you need rebindability, use a
(mutable)pointer to (const)static array.
--
Simen
