2013/12/20 Timon Gehr <[email protected]>
> On 12/19/2013 02:58 PM, Kenji Hara wrote:
>
>> 2013/12/19 Timon Gehr <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
>>
>>
>> Well, a constructor can be thought of as yielding a result. A const
>> method returning 'this' cannot return an 'immutable' object.
>>
>>
>> Constructor has no return value in semantic level.
>>
>>
> Conceptually speaking, a struct constructor declaration immediately gives
> you a callable with the corresponding return type.
>
> struct S{ this(int x)immutable{ } }
> immutable(S) construct(int x){ return S(x); }
>
It's not necessary concept.
I do understand your rationale. What I am saying is that the DIP
>> adds a wildcard meaning to 'const' that was not previously there,
>> and I consider this to be more of a weakness than a strength.
>>
>>
>> What is the weakness? As far as I can see, there is no *logical* failure.
>>
>> Indeed I can agree that the described concept in the DIP may be hard to
>> understand, but it would be enough easy compared with the currently
>> implemented thing.
>>
>> Kenji Hara
>>
>
> I think it is easy to understand. I just think that the 'const' qualifier
> is not descriptive.
>
I think it is necessary small learning cost, to keep language semantics
simple.
Kenji Hara
