float init 0 request

[Mindy Batek (0xEAB)]

On Saturday, 22 August 2026 at 09:37:46 UTC, Nick Treleaven wrote:
> On Friday, 21 August 2026 at 20:54:25 UTC, Mindy Batek (0xEAB) 
> wrote:
>> ```d
>> int foo() const
>> {
>> 	for (auto next = (() @trusted => cast() this.next)(); next 
>> !is null; next = next.next)
>> 	{
>
> Surely that is incorrect to use `cast()`, because fields of 
> `next` could be mutated.

Indeed, a cleaned up version would be even more verbose, maybe 
something like…

```d
int foo() const
{
	() @trusted {
		for (auto next = this.next; next !is null; next = next.next)
		{
			const next2 = next;
			next = null;
			() @safe {
				// […]
			}();
	}();
```

Anyway, it was more like a short example of a workaround — with 
no special regard given to correctness.

> Can't you just declare the node type instead:
> ```d
> const(Node)* next = this.next;
> ```

The node type is an `abstract class` in my case, i.e. a pointer 
already.

I think we can agree that an elegant language shouldn’t require 
me to create a pointer to a pointer just the work around the type 
system.

Needless to say, that extra pointer would likely need an extra 
memory allocation as well.