Simen kjaeraas wrote:
Walter Bright <newshou...@digitalmars.com> wrote:
Logical const means the same value is returned every time, not a
different one.
So you would have only pure functions work with logical const?
No, I said that logical const is not verifiable by the compiler
Going further, one could define mutable state only in (pure) member
functions. This state would actually be stored in the object, but would
be inaccessible to other member functions, and would not be considered
by opEquals. I believe this is the closest we could come to enforcing
logical constness.
It still is not verifiable. That's why logical constness is not a language
issue, it is a convention.
