On Thursday, 21 February 2013 at 04:07:46 UTC, Steven
Schveighoffer wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 21:50:01 -0500, deadalnix
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wednesday, 20 February 2013 at 13:42:48 UTC, Steven
Schveighoffer wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 01:00:00 -0500, deadalnix
<[email protected]> wrote:
As discussed previously, I really wonder hy a const and non
const version of a function can exists in a first place.
What problem does it solve that isn't better solved by inout
?
const(T) and T are different types. Saying you can overload
on types, unless they just vary by const is a special case
that I don't think is worth adding.
Explain me how the hell you overload on implicit parameter
types ?
A method is simply a function that takes a hidden parameter of
an object or struct.
Really, a method with a signature Obj.foo() is a function with
a signature foo(Obj this)
A const method Obj.foo() const is a function with a signature
foo(const(Obj) this)
So it's equivalent to saying you can overload:
foo(int *x)
foo(const(int) *x)
To disallow this would be unnecessarily restrictive.
That is called avoiding the question.
