On 13/08/10 10:08, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Trass3r wrote:
Well isn't it natural that a constness system has a much larger
impact than just some syntax additions.
I don't see any flaws in its design. The implementation is of course
still buggy though and needs to mature.
I agree. There are very severe bugs and undue limitations in today's
const. Having a comprehensive discussion of const's status and role in
current and future D idioms is a great idea. We should start it with a
scrutiny of the reported and possibly unreported bugs in the feature.
Andrei
I also agree that cost is worth the effort.
Most of the roadblocks are relatively easy to overcome by rolling
const-correctness through druntime and phobos.
However, I still regard the language design decision of a class
reference having the same constness as the object it refers to as a
major language design problem. I would be delighted if someone could
point out to me how to neatly work around this though.
--
Graham St Jack
