On 2009-12-16 16:46:14 -0500, Jason House <[email protected]> said:
Walter Bright Wrote:
Jason House wrote:
KennyTM~ Wrote:
auto const?
I was wondering the same thing.
The const transport thing is, unfortunately, a very different problem.
Of course, but it may still go through bikeshed issues. This morning I
read about inout, return, vconst, aconst, sameconst, autoconst, auto
const, and bikeshed. At least one of those was in jest :) auto const
isn't that bad, and you obviously liked auto ref...
Since this is just a special kind of const, it could be called "const^"
(const or a derived constness):
const?(Object) func(const?(Object) o) {
return o;
}
The interesting thing about it, beside not taking a keyword, is that it
can scale in the future if we need to add many distinct constness to
the same function signature:
const?(Object) func(const?(Object) o, const?2(Object) o2, out
const?2(Object) o3) {
o3 = o2;
return o;
}
Not that you'd need that often, but if it does becomes necessary in the
future we'll still have some options.
Furthermore, the concept could be extended to any type. This could be
useful with class hierarchies:
Object? func(Object? o) {
writeln(o.toString());
return o;
}
MyObject o = func(new MyObject);
Here, "Object?" means Object or a derived type.
Yeah, that breaks the proposed syntax for nullable types... just too
bad. If that's really a problem we could use ^ instead.
--
Michel Fortin
[email protected]
http://michelf.com/
