On Sunday, 29 March 2015 at 20:29:50 UTC, bitwise wrote:
3) It's not how C++ rolls.
`const Test test;` and `Test const test;` are equivalent in
C++. You need that '*' in C++, too, to make a distinction
between reference and data.
I'm a little confused. I was comparing a C++ pointer-to-class
to a D reference, which are basically the same under the hood.
I wasn't trying to bring up C++ value types. I'm not sure how
they're relevant to the argument.
`Test` can be a pointer type:
class C {};
typedef C *Test;
const Test test1 = 0;
Test const test2 = 0; /* same type as test1 */
The point is that C++ shares the problem: If all you have is one
identifier (and no pointer star), you can't distinguish the data
from the pointer.
So C++ syntax could only be properly adopted into D, if D class
references got something like the pointer star. At that point,
current D syntax with parentheses would work, too.
4) Rebindable works reasonably well, as far as I know.
The verbosity and blatant disregard for DRY makes me CRY.
See what I did there.. ;)
Anyways, IMO, D could benefit from having "tailconst" but I
think it's a moot point.
Yeah, I don't like Rebindable very much either. But it works ok,
so whatever. If you have strong arguments, maybe post to the
general forum. For me it's just about aesthetics.
