DMD 1.036 and 2.020 releases

[Jason House]

Bill Baxter Wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 8:29 AM, Walter Bright
> <newshound1 at digitalmars.com> wrote:
> >
> > http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
> > http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.036.zip
> >
> > The 2.0 version splits phobos into druntime and phobos libraries (thanks to
> > Sean Kelly). This will enable both Tango and Phobos to share a common core
> > library.
> >
> > http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html
> > http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.020.zip
> >
> > There are a lot of structural changes that go along with this, so expect
> > some rough patches with this release. It may take a followup release to file
> > them down. There's also some renaming of imports and function names, as a
> > compromise with Tango names.
> 
> Wao!  Missed this at first:
> 
> class Foo
> {
>     ref int getref() {
>         return m_int;
>     }
> private:
>     int m_int = 23;
> }
> 
> void main() {
>     auto foo = new Foo;
> 
>     writefln(foo.getref);
>     foo.getref() = 7;
>     writefln(foo.getref);
> }
> //Outputs:
> //23
> //7
> 
> It works!  This is maybe even bigger news than cure for TangoPhobia!
> 
> But I think maybe more documentation is needed in the Ref returns
> section regarding how this affects opIndex.
> 
> class Foo
> {
>     this() {
>         m_arr.length = 10;
>         foreach(i, ref a; m_arr) { a=i;}
>     }
>     int[] array() {
>         return m_arr;
>     }
>     ref int opIndex(size_t idx) {
>         return m_arr[idx];
>     }
> 
> private:
>     int[] m_arr;
> }
> 
> void main() {
>     auto foo = new Foo;
>     foo[3] = -99;
> //hello.d(44): Error: operator [] assignment overload with opIndex(i,
> value) illegal, use opIndexAssign(value, i)
> //hello.d(44): function hello.Foo.opIndex (uint idx) does not match
> parameter types (int,int)
> //hello.d(44): Error: expected 1 arguments, not 2
> }
> 
> Apparently using opIndex with ref return is not allowed as a way to
> set an index.
> This works though:
> 
>     *(&foo[3]) = -99;
> 
> Is there a good reason why it shouldn't be possible to use opAssign as
> a replacement for opIndexAssign?
> 
> --bb

opindexAssign will still be needed when opindex has a non-ref return type.