On Monday, May 23, 2016 14:08:43 Jack Applegame via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote: > On Monday, 23 May 2016 at 11:05:34 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > > I don't know why you think that D violates its own rules > > frequently though. It's not perfect, but it usually does follow > > its own rules - and when it doesn't, we fix it (though not > > always as quickly as would be ideal). > > The most PITA for me is lacking mutable references for immutable > classes. I like immutability and hate Rebindable.
Well, Rebindable is kind of ugly, but honestly, a built in modifier probably wouldn't look much better. e.g. tail_const(MyClass) obj; vs Rebindable!MyClass obj; The fact that you don't have a * to separate what the const applies to seems to kill any chance of making it short, and since it's fundamentally part of the design of D classes that they can't be used separately from their reference, I don't see that changing even if we get some kind of tail const built-in to the language for classes. > Also, how to embed reference counter into immutable class without > violating immutability? You can't. It's fundamentally impossible as long as immutable is transitive. I believe that the proposed solution is to put the ref-count in the memory next to the object, or at least somewhere else where the memory-management stuff can find it. In the case of GC-allocated memory, that should be fairly straightforword, though I don't know how feasible it is to deal with it with non-GC-allocated memory without losing out on pure. Really, it's going to come down to how the ref-counting scheme that Walter is working on works. - Jonathan M Davis
