On 12/15/2014 1:28 AM, Dicebot wrote:
On Monday, 15 December 2014 at 06:12:05 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
C++ seems to do fine without it for const. It's a convenience feature.
C++ const does not really restrict or affect anything "for real", it is
non-existent feature.
C++ programmers constantly copy/pasta functions for the sole purpose of having
one with const and one without.
`scope` as proposed would result in inability to store
result of predicates if those are ever to accept scope data - unless you defined
two versions for each function that may possibly accept scope data with
absolutely identical body.
If that is necessary, it is no worse than C++ is with const. It isn't a critical
issue, or C++ would not be usable. I'd like to wait and see how this plays out.
2. This is what scope inference is all about.
Which only works with templates and lack of scope on arguments does not affect
function body -> templates are not necessary, same as inout.
It also works with all the lambdas, since source for them is always available.
I also wanted to make it (i.e. inference) work with auto functions, but Don
Clugston was the primary objector :-)
This is not really answering my objections but side-stepping.
Inference addresses the issue.
That would help with many issues but it need careful design to be well-accepted.
How about teaming up to do a DIP about it at some point where this discussion is
over? :P
Ok, sure.
