On Tuesday, 9 April 2013 at 03:36:28 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 4/8/2013 5:39 AM, Manu wrote:
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.
In C++, it is legal to cast away const and mutate it. That is
undefined behavior in D.
A D compiler can assume, for example, that a const reference
passed to a pure function will not mutate that reference, nor
anything transitively referred to by that reference. No such
assumption can be made like that in C++.
No, D have holes in its type system and so can't ensure anything.
It has been show many many many times, especially by Timon and
myself, and I'm kind of fed up to have to repeat that again and
again, especiallt since fix proposal have recieved no attention
at all.
Stop claiming that such possibility exists, or take a serious
look at how to really ensure it.
