On Saturday, 9 March 2024 at 07:49:52 UTC, Liam McGillivray wrote:
But that begs the question; why? Don't dynamic arrays always start with a length of 0? If the array was only extended when valid objects were appended using the append operator `~=`, and none of those objects were deleted (as I the destructor was never called), why would some of the array elements be null?
I'll answer my own question; because the thing assigned to the array was already null.
Anyway, I managed to fix the segfaults. In the latest two commits, I have turned some pointers into references. Now that I understand this, I should have fewer segmentation faults.