On Friday, 15 July 2016 at 14:43:35 UTC, Andrew Godfrey wrote:
On Friday, 15 July 2016 at 11:09:24 UTC, Patrick Schluter wrote:
On Friday, 15 July 2016 at 10:25:16 UTC, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
I think the one that hurts the most is fixing "C++ fault" #3.
It means there are many scenarios in which I could put const
in C++, and I simply can't in D, because something somewhere
needs to be mutable.
Then it is not const and marking it as const is a bug. D
enforces to not write a bug, what's wrong with that?
One example is if you make a class that has an internal cache
of something. Updating or invalidating that cache has no
logical effect on the externally-observable state of the class.
So you should be able to modify the cache even on a 'const'
object. This is not a bug and I've seen it have a huge effect
on performance - probably a lot more than the const
optimizations Walter is talking about here.
That's actually not true. Memory barrier needs to be emitted, and
considered in the caller code.
