T[new] misgivings

[Jeremie Pelletier]

Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
>> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> This goes into something more interesting that I thought of after the 
>>> conversation. Consider:
>>>
>>> T[new] a;
>>> T[] b;
>>> ...
>>> a = b;
>>>
>>> What should that do?
>>
>> Error. T[] cannot be implicitly converted to T[new]
> 
> Then your argument building on similarity between the two is weakened.
> 
> T[new] a;
> T[] b;
> ...
> a = [1, 2, 3];
> b = [1, 2, 3];
> 
> Central to your argument was that the two must do the same thing. Since 
> now literals are in a whole new league (they aren't slices because 
> slices can't be assigned to arrays), the cornerstone of your argument 
> goes away.
> 
> 
> Andrei

Simple, assignment to a fails 'cannot cast T[3] to T[new]'.

It's already consistent with slices of different types:
char[] a = "foo"; // error, cannot cast immutable(char)[] to char[]
int[new] b = [1, 2, 3]; // error, cannot cast int[3] to int[new]

you have to do:
char[] a = "foo".dup;
int[new] b = [1, 2, 3].dup;

Jeremie