Implicit conversions through purity

Jonathan M Davis jmdavisProg at gmx.com
Sat Apr 12 17:02:34 PDT 2014


On Saturday, April 12, 2014 21:26:01 bearophile wrote:
> Is it possible and a good idea to allow code like the function
> foo2?
> 
> 
> string foo1(in string s) pure nothrow {
>      auto s2 = s.dup;
>      s2[0] = 'a';
>      return s2; // OK.
> }

Honestly, I would have considered that to be a bug. Converting the return type 
to a different level of mutability based on purity is one thing. Automatically 
casting the return value just because the function is pure is another matter 
entirely. Clearly, it can work, but it seems incredibly sloppy to me.

- Jonathan M Davis


More information about the Digitalmars-d-learn mailing list