Inability to dup/~ for const arrays of class objects

[Peter Williams]

On 30/05/13 10:49, Peter Williams wrote:
> On 30/05/13 09:45, Ali Çehreli wrote:
>> Yes, simply pass-by-reference. Not expensive at all. There may be
>> surprises though; you may want to read this article:
>>
>>    http://dlang.org/d-array-article.html
>
> Very informative article.

Thinking about this some more, it seems I still need the const even with 
pass by value to reassure the caller that his array won't be altered. 
So the problem doesn't go away it just changes slightly.

I find the mechanism described in the article a little disconcerting and 
it certainly needs more publicity as it's a bug in waiting for the 
unwary. Wouldn't a better rule for pass by value be that any changes to 
the data part of the array (including assignment to an element) causes 
reallocation of the entire data portion.

Peter