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.
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.
Github / IRC: todayman