LRU cache for ~=

[Don]

Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Rainer Deyke wrote:
>> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> One surprising (but safe) behavior that remains with slices is this:
>>>
>>> void fun(int[] a) {
>>>    a[0] = 0;
>>>    a ~= 42;
>>>    a[0] = 42;
>>> }
>>>
>>> The caller may or may not see 42 in the first slot after the call.
>>
>> Your definition of "safe" is clearly not aligned with mine.
>>
> 
> What's yours?

"SafeD is easy to learn and it keeps the programmers away from undefined 
behaviors." -- safed.html.

The behaviour you quoted is undefined behaviour, therefore it's not safe 
according to the only SafeD definition in the spec.