On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 14:50:44 -0400, monarch_dodra <monarchdo...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, 22 April 2014 at 18:35:58 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 11:36:07 -0400, monarch_dodra
<monarchdo...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, 22 April 2014 at 15:30:36 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Also, an immutable can be initialized that way:
immutable int[] = int[].init;
Isn't that exactly "R.init" ?
Yes, you said if it's an immutable it would fail to compile. I think
this is not true.
-Steve
Ah... you said:
Note, is the r2 = R.init needed? Not sure.
To whitch I replied:
Yes: It R2 has no default init, or is an immutable,
then that line will fail to compile.
I meant that if you *don't* add the R.init, then the code will *not*
compile. EG => R.init is necessary.
Sorry for the mixup :/
OH!!! I meant is the whole *line* necessary, not the R.init part :)
Note that in my updated version, r is passed in as a parameter to the mock
function. This means if R is inout(something), it will be part of the
parameters, and you don't need a dummy inout parameter to shut the
compiler up.
So the r2 = R.init; was just to "keep things the same", but I'm not sure
it's necessary to have. It has a comment saying "can define a range
object", whereas it could just be "I need a range object to compile the
rest of this code" :)
-Steve
