On Tue, Apr 01, 2014 at 06:04:48AM +0000, monarch_dodra wrote: > On Tuesday, 1 April 2014 at 04:43:44 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: > >On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 09:55:01PM +0000, monarch_dodra wrote: > >>On Monday, 31 March 2014 at 21:41:16 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: > >>>Argh, why is opSlice non-const? :-( Please file a bug. > >> > >>If opSlice was const, then you'd get a const slice, with const > >>reference. You wouldn't even be able to iterate on it. > >[...] > > > >Um... wat? > > I'm pointing out the fix is not as trivial as slapping "const" onto > the signature. It requires a very real investment in terms of > development. [...]
Well, yes... I don't expect just adding 'const' to an existing function is going to magically make it work with const types. :-P Though I suppose the way I said it was ambiguous. My bad. T -- Those who don't understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
