Am Sat, 5 Apr 2014 15:31:30 +0100 schrieb Iain Buclaw <ibuc...@gdcproject.org>:
> On 5 Apr 2014 13:45, "Johannes Pfau" <nos...@example.com> wrote: > > > > Root cause is that const(char)[] is a distinct type compared to > > char[] so I think we need to make const(char)[] a variant of char[]. > > > > We could use build_variant_type_copy and then modify the copy > > to use the correct basetype. Here's a proof of concept, could you > > finish this Iain? > > > > (We should probably check all types which have a 'next' type if a > > similar change makes sense for these) > > > > I've had another thought for a while now that involves not > constifying 'in' parameters, but at the same time not loosing its > guarantee. > Related: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-01/msg01656.html
