On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 19:30:46 -0400, dsimcha <dsim...@yahoo.com> wrote:
== Quote from Jonathan M Davis (jmdavisp...@gmail.com)'s article
On Friday, August 13, 2010 15:03:07 Tomek Sowiński wrote:
> I agree with the content, but not the tone. D's const makes all other
> mainstream const systems look petty. Applying the concept of
transitivity
> has been revolutionary (hail Walter). Tail const is just a cable to
the
> socket to make this wonderful device work out-of-box for programming
> masses.
In pretty much all cases other than references, D's const system is
fantast
ic.
It really simplified things in comparison to C++, and is overall a
definite
improvement. It's just with references that there's a big problem, and
with
them, they're better than what you get with Java's final, but it's still
seriously lacking due to the whole thing becoming const instead of just
the
referent.
- Jonathan M Davis
I still don't understand: What's so bad about Rebindable? Yes, it's
not the
syntactically prettiest thing in the world, but complaining about it is
like
complaining about climbing a molehill when you've got Mount Everest to
climb next.
My previous gripe about it was that it didn't support interfaces, but I
just
realized that Shin Fujishiro fixed this a while back.
There are other reasons to have tail-const other than classes. For
example, there's no equivalent custom-range idiom for const(T)[]. You
simply can't make a custom range tail-const.
I admit I haven't used Rebindable much, but last I checked it was severely
out of date.
-Steve
