On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 16:37:57 +0300, Andrei Alexandrescu
<[email protected]> wrote:
grauzone wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
bearophile wrote:
I don't know C++ much, and I have to confess that I have to fully
understand the const business still. I hope your book will teach me
this topic very well :-)
One thing about const that is slowly downing on this community is that
it will _not_ be used as often as in C++. It will be rare, and the
compiler and standard library should not require it without very good
reason. I think opEquals for classes is at fault for requiring const.
Interesting statement. Does this apply to immutable as well, or only
const? Because I thought const/immutable was supposed to make program
logic clearer etc... That implied it would be heavily used in "normal"
code. That's all a bit vague to me, care to clarify this a bit?
The statement doesn't apply to immutable because C++ doesn't have it.
Andrei
You won't be able to call opEquals on immutable objects if opEquals would
require mutable pointer.
