Implicit conversions through purity

[bearophile]

Jonathan M Davis:

> 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.

In foo1 D is working as designed, as this was a desired feature,
it has passed the Kenji and Walter review, and it was implemented
several months ago. It's a very handy way to create immutable
data with pure functions and it's safe, it's safer than
assumeUnique that is just a convention. Very recently Walter has
further improved this feature, allowing more implicit conversion
cases. So it's the opposite of a bug, it saves you from bugs in
three different ways.

But my question was about the successive foo functions :-)

Bye,
bearophile