On 8 April 2013 21:53, Iain Buclaw <[email protected]> wrote: > On 8 April 2013 12:41, deadalnix <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Monday, 8 April 2013 at 09:41:52 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote: >> >>> It uses some type information, eg: >>> >>> const/immutable/wild -> qualified const. >>> shared -> qualified volatile. >>> shared + const/wild -> qualified const/volatile. >>> >>> >> const/wild can be muted via aliasing. I'm not sure how GCC's backend >> understand const, but this seems unclear to me if this is correct. >> >> > GCC's backend is pretty much C/C++ semantics. So the const qualifier is > shallow, and does not guarantee that no mutations will occur. >
But D makes no further guarantee. I don't see how const in D is any different than const in C++ in that sense? That's basically the concept of const, it's not a useful concept for optimisation, only immutable is.
