On 12/29/14 9:12 PM, Matt Soucy wrote:
On 12/29/2014 02:07 PM, anonymous wrote:
On Monday, 29 December 2014 at 13:20:39 UTC, Julian Kranz wrote:
Thank you for your answer. This kind of thing also works for C++, but that would mean
that I would implement the whole visitor twice - one const and one non-const version. Is
that really the only way? Can't I tell the D compiler that "the argument of that
lambda shares the const-ness of the current object"?
D offers "inout"; this actually aims into the right directing, but I guess it
does not help here.
Is there any "static if"-something construct to check the const-ness of an
object?
There's a pattern I suggested before[1] that I'd like to mention
in addition to the template solutions Steven Schveighoffer and
Daniel Kozak gave:
Call the non-const overload from the const overload and cast
accordingly.
In your case:
void blah(void function(Hugo h) f) {
f(this);
}
void blah(void function(const Hugo h) f) const {
(cast(Hugo) this).blah(cast(void function(Hugo)) f);
}
This is safe as long as the non-const overload does not mutate
the object when f doesn't. BUT you have to make sure of that
yourself; the compiler can't help anymore.
[1]
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/22442031/how-to-make-a-template-function-const-if-the-template-is-true/22442425#22442425
Wait, is there a reason that you cast away const instead of adding it? I
haven't done too much with D const lately, but in C++ I know that I would have
the non-const version call the const version instead - seems a bit safer, and
the compiler can check it a bit beter.
It would still require a cast. Remember the function pointer passed to
non-const blah requires a non-const Hugo. So you would have to cast at
least the function pointer to void function(const(Hugo)). This doesn't
sit as well as casting the other way (you can always call a function
that takes a const Hugo with a non-const Hugo), although practically
speaking, there isn't any damage done. However, the call of f inside the
const blah function would violate const. If f were marked as pure, this
could be actually damaging.
Either solution looks ugly and error-prone to me. I like the template
solution the best, either as a template this member or a UFCS template
function call. The delegate solution I posted earlier is neat, but seems
too inelegant.
-Steve
