Issue with opApply and const
Steven Schveighoffer
schveiguy at yahoo.com
Tue Nov 4 07:31:55 PST 2008
While porting Tango to D2 I ran into this issue.
When applying const tags to BitArray, I've found that opApply has two
issues.
I have to at least double the number of opApply functions. The variations
are for const or not, and using an index or not.
So I now have 4 opApplys with the following signatures:
int opApply( int delegate(ref bool) dg )
int opApply( int delegate(ref size_t, ref bool) dg )
int opApply( int delegate(ref const(bool)) dg ) const
int opApply( int delegate(ref size_t, ref const(bool)) dg ) const
So first issue, it sucks that I have to put ref on the size_t (index).
Builtin arrays don't permit this, so it makes no sense why the compiler
can't figure out whether a ref parameter is allowed in the foreach loop by
looking at the opApply signature. I should be able to compile with:
int opApply( int delegate(size_t, ref bool) dg )
And furthermore, to save extra code and headache, I should be able to remove
ref altogether when the struct is const:
int opApply( int delegate(size_t, bool) dg ) const
---------------------
Second issue, I get a compile error with the following unittest code:
BitArray a = [1,0,1];
int i;
foreach( b; a )
{
switch( i )
{
case 0: assert( b == true ); break;
case 1: assert( b == false ); break;
case 2: assert( b == true ); break;
default: assert( false );
}
i++;
}
tango/core/BitArray.d(414): Error: cannot uniquely infer foreach argument
types
WTF? How am I supposed to make const-correct structs/classes that allow
setting elements during foreach when the struct/class is not const?
Is this a bug, or is there another way to do this?
I know Walter is working on updating foreach so that it works with ranges,
will fixes to these problems also be included in that update?
-Steve
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list