On 09/21/2015 12:01 PM, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: > On Monday, 21 September 2015 at 09:45:01 UTC, ZombineDev wrote: >> I guess that the only thing that doesn't map directly to D is &&. The >> others look on the D side like this: >> C++ -> D >> T* -> T* >> T& -> ref T >> const T* -> const T* >> const T& -> const ref T > > I don't think D const and C++ const share semantics. In C++ you can > write to things pointed to by T even if T is const. You also have no > guarantee that a "const T" isn't mutated by another thread, I believe. > > A C++ pointer is what D would call a shared pointer, whereas C++ does > not have the concept of thread local pointers. > > etc. >
While D and C++ const don't quite share semantics, they're petty close and they mangle the same way. I do what ZombieDev has in the table. I completely bail on && and intentionally don't bind those things. -- Paul O'Neil Github / IRC: todayman