added equal assignment operator Array<T>::operator=(ArrayView<T const> &)

[rrsettgast]

Title says it all.

[corbett5]

Looks good to me. I'd either add a test or at least put in a TODO or issue that we should add a test.

[corbett5]

Just curious but is the std::remove_const necessary? I thought you don't have problems with duplicate const.

[rrsettgast]

I had put in ArrayVIew<T>::operator=( ArrayView<T> const&), ArrayVIew<T>::operator=( ViewTypeConst const &), but then thought better of it. I felt it was a little unclear what the intent of the operator is, and whether it would be a source of bugs. I did put in the std::remove_const because I was getting some errors in the using, but now I am not sure I was this is what fixed the problem I was having. Also:

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5781222/duplicate-const-qualifier-allowed-in-c-but-not-in-c

but when I remove the std::remove_const it compiles fine now. I could remove it, but I feel it is better to be explicit about it...not that this is valid reasoning.

[rrsettgast]

...but then again, if I do something like this:

  array1d<double> a;
  arrayView1d<double const> aView = a;
  arrayView1d<double const>::ViewTypeConst anotherView = a;

  std::cout<<LvArray::system::demangle(typeid(anotherView).name())<<std::endl;

it outputs:

LvArray::ArrayView<double const, 1, 0, int, LvArray::ChaiBuffer>

So it is dropping the redundant const. If you dry to do:

double const const a = 1.0;

you get:

/usr/WS2/settgast/Codes/geosx/GEOSX_wave/src/main/main.cpp:34:14: error: duplicate 'const' declaration specifier [-Werror,-Wduplicate-decl-specifier]
double const const aScalar = 1.0;

so looks like it is illegal, but the compiler drops the second const when it is an alias??

[klevzoff]

I think in http://eel.is/c++draft/dcl.type.cv#1 this sentence

Each cv-qualifier shall appear at most once in a cv-qualifier-seq.

refers to language grammar, i.e. what goes into text of a program, so it prohibits literally typing const const anywhere. But then

Redundant cv-qualifications are ignored.
[Note [2]: For example, these could be introduced by typedefs. — end note]

[corbett5]

I had put in ArrayVIew<T>::operator=( ArrayView<T> const&), ArrayVIew<T>::operator=( ViewTypeConst const &), but then thought better of it

We rely on the shallow copy semantics of ArrayView in at least once place where we construct the element accessors. Plus it'd be weird to have the copy constructor do something so different from the assignment operator.