opEquals(const ref yadaYada)

[lws]

On 2009-12-13 04:29:28 -0800, Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy at yahoo.com> said:

> Richard Webb Wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> I mentioned this problem in the thread @
>> http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D.learn&article_id=18405

I 
>> 
>> ran into the rvalue problem while trying to get Juno to compile, and 
>> found that it builds ok if you declare both
>> 
>> bool opEquals(const ref Foo rhs) const
>> 
>> and
>> 
>> bool opEquals(Foo rhs) const
>> 
> 
> Note the resulting bug: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3607
> 
> I also don't believe Richard's workaround is a "solution".  The 
> compiler should not force you to create a const ref version if the 
> argument can be implicitly cast from const to mutable.
> 
> -Steve

I don't know if I buy that the opEquals thing is a bug.  However,   
that const destructor thing in the other thread needs to be fixed.



////////////////////////////////
struct Foo
{
        ~this()
        {
                
        }
}

void Bar()
{
        const Foo f;
}
////////////////////////////////

Definitely produces incorrect behavior.