LRU cache for ~=

[Rainer Deyke]

Denis Koroskin wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 03:00:57 +0400, Rainer Deyke <rainerd at eldwood.com>
> wrote:
>> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> One surprising (but safe) behavior that remains with slices is this:
>>>
>>> void fun(int[] a) {
>>>    a[0] = 0;
>>>    a ~= 42;
>>>    a[0] = 42;
>>> }
>>>
>>> The caller may or may not see 42 in the first slot after the call.
>>
>> Your definition of "safe" is clearly not aligned with mine.
> 
> Safe as in SafeD (i.e. no memory corruption) :)

If the caller wasn't expecting the array to be modified, then that's a
textbook case of memory corruption.  If the caller /was/ expecting the
array to be modified, then it's the opposite, which isn't much better.


-- 
Rainer Deyke - rainerd at eldwood.com