On Wednesday, 17 January 2018 at 10:36:44 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
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
Which you need to write a DIP in order to do it.
