On Wednesday, January 17, 2018 09:32:30 Simen Kjærås via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Tuesday, 16 January 2018 at 22:01:43 UTC, Mark wrote: > > On Tuesday, 16 January 2018 at 19:45:06 UTC, Andrei > > > > Alexandrescu wrote: > >> https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=255 > >> > >> I think it would be great to reduce the median age of open > >> issues, and the median longevity of closed issues. I'm in > >> talks with Sebastian about publishing such metrics. One > >> obvious way to improve that is to look at old bugs - I suspect > >> many are simple or have been fixed already. > >> > >> > >> Andrei > > > > What about #5337 [1] ? It's the oldest Phobos bug in Bugzilla, > > from 2010. It seems to be a proposal for tail-const support for > > Phobos ranges, accompanied by an implementation. Should > > something be done about that? I never felt the need for > > tail-const in the language. > > > > [1] https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5377 > > As the person who filed that bug, I say close it. It was filed in > response to clamor in the newsgroup about how D was unusable > without tail const - an assertion that has proven baseless.
D is quite useable without tail-const, but without it, ranges and const can't be used together. The solution that most of us have taken is basically to give up on const. Having tail-const would be better, but implementing it without language support is a royal pain and not the sort of thing that most of us are going to bother with. It's just easier to give up on const. It would be a _lot_ nicer if we could figure out how to cleanly add tail-const to the language. - Jonathan M Davis
