On Saturday, 9 January 2021 at 20:00:35 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2021-01-09 19:16, Q. Schroll wrote:
Say I have a class hierarchy like this:
class Base { }
class Derived : Base { }
A Derived object cannot be referenced as a Base object, but as
a const(Base) object. That makes sense to me.
It can:
Base b = new Derived();
That's not what I mean. You copy the reference. That's not what
referencing meant.
Derived d = new Derived();
Base* bp = &d; // fails
const(Base) cbp = &d; // compiles.
Is there a reason all you're examples are using pointers?
Yes. Actually, I need it for slices, but only pointer part of it
really mattered.
A Derived[] is implicitly a const(Base)[], not a Base[].
A void delegate() @safe[] is implicitly a const(void
delegate())[].
But it seems a void function() @safe[] **isn't** implicitly a
const(void function())[].
Functions taking those are kind of useless like that.
