On Tuesday, November 30, 2010 10:56:41 Steven Schveighoffer wrote: > On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 13:46:31 -0500, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisp...@gmx.com> > > wrote: > > Personally, I think that an in-language solution would definitely be > > better and > > more in line with other language features than trying to fix the issue > > in a > > library. This really does look like a core language issue which we > > couldn't > > solve properly, so we created a bandaid in the standard library to solve > > it. > > > > The problem is that the feature has to be properly designed and that > > someone has > > to take the time to actually implement it. And at this point, even if we > > have a > > perfect solution for it, Walter is sick of the whole issue and not at all > > interested in implementing it. Someone else would need to step up to the > > plate > > on this one, and we don't exactly have an abundance of dmd developers. > > It seems > > like no one has both the inclination and the time to do it. > > > > I'd _love_ to see proper tail const as a language feature, and that's > > where I > > think that it should be, but it really doesn't look like that's going to > > happen > > at this point. > > I agree with all this except the last phrase. I think someone will > eventually do it, but it probably won't be Walter. It's such a blatant > omission that someone who has an itch, and good compiler-writing skills > will just do it and stick it in a patch.
That may be, but I think that D2 is currently at the point where it needs to be done _soon_ if it's going to be in the language. D2 as a language is really supposed to be essentially stable at this point. And tail const is a big change. It might be doable in a way which is totally backwards compatible, but it's the kind of thing which could have a serious impact on how const is dealt with in Phobos. So, putting it off does _not_ seem like a good idea to me. So, unless someone actually does it soon, it really starts looking like a feature for D3 if D3 ever happens. - Jonathan M Davis
