Dnia 07-12-2009 o 11:34:52 Michal Minich <[email protected]>
napisał(a):
Hello Tomek,
... don't make sense. So is there a reason why they aren't excluded
from the "everything in an immutable is immutable" rule?
Tomek
Immutable static member function could be useful...
marking struct or class as const or immutable is the same as marking
every its member so. The problem I see is in definition of what const or
immutable member function means:
from D specs: "Immutable member functions are guaranteed that the object
and anything referred to by the this reference is immutable."
Which applies both to instance and s static functions. I think the above
definition should apply only to instance functions. Static const or
immutable functions should be defined as:
Immutable static member functions are guaranteed that the static
variables of object and anything referred to by these variables is
immutable.
static member function cannot modify member variables already, because
they do not have this pointer. They would be only allowed to modify its
arguments and global variables; they would be something like pure
functions for the congaing type, but not for other world.
I'm not sure how this semantics could be useful in practice, but it
seems definitely better to me than erroring out on static function
inside immutable type.
If by the lot of text above you meant it's a compiler bug, I agree :-)
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3598
Tomek
