On Thursday, 31 October 2013 at 17:22:07 UTC, Daniel Davidson
wrote:
I'm think you may be correct... but what specifically is
incorrect about the language?
When I see __fieldPostBlit I get the feeling it is more an
implementation issue than the language.
__postblit also looks like implementation detail but it is same
problem. Field postblit means that aggregate has some members
which have postblits so they should be called. This is same
problem which blows in higher level.
If as you suggest, D language is fundamentally broken - is it
possible we can just get a plan for fixing it? To me this seems
like a huge design hole and I come back to the threads with
questions again and again and I really don't know how others
manage the use of const/immutable.
This is probable tenth thread about const postblits which I do
remember for all my (only) 2 years in D. D2 (version currently in
use) dates back to 2004 AFAIK and Andrei (helping to design the
language) is in D since 2006, also AFAIK. Draw your own
conclusions.
I've already given up on immutable. If I have to strip const as
well then that is a huge pain and unfortunate since the concept
seems sound and well argued in TDPL. Trying to mess with
mutable/const/immutable on mostly working code is like playing
whack a mole.
One can do: 1) revise the design to challange whether consts are
really necessary 2a) use workarounds like const pointer 2b) use
cast to break const or another tricks (explicit casts are better
because holes in type system may be fixed in some point in the
feature)
