On Saturday, 24 September 2016 at 10:59:50 UTC, mikey wrote:
On Saturday, 24 September 2016 at 10:16:34 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
You don't need to cast, from "mutable" to "const" is implicit:
https://dlang.org/spec/const3.html#implicit_conversions
Ok, but using const would be an accepted way of doing this? The
options I could see were to have "_o" as a const or immutable
type and just create a const on the first call to the lazily
evaluated property, or to do what I did and have "_o" as a
non-const and then convert it to cost on the way out. However
To store it as const I guess I'd have to make it a non-const
pointer to a const object, and is that not kind of what
immutable is?
Yes, the problem is that if you want to create a true
const(Object) (with const part of the type) you have to
initialize it in a constructor (so no lazyness). It indeed looks
like the immutable mechanism. I don't know **exactly** why but I
guess that's a special case for classes since there's no other
way to initialize them.
Finally, with the property your object is seen as const(Object)
outside. The only difference is inside ConstProp.
