On Thu, 02 Dec 2010 20:38:01 -0500, Walter Bright
<newshou...@digitalmars.com> wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Thu, 02 Dec 2010 13:57:04 -0500, Bruno Medeiros
<brunodomedeiros+s...@com.gmail> wrote:
On 29/11/2010 14:56, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
This has been discussed at length on this newsgroup, and I argued for
it
for a long time. You will not get any traction with Walter, because
I've already proven that logical const == const, and it still doesn't
change his mind.
Could you detail a bit what do you mean by logical const == const ?
That doesn't sound right to me.
Here is where I show how logical const already exists, it's just
clunky to use.
BTW, this was before TLS, so the example would have to be updated a
bit.
http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=58927
What you're doing is keeping an alternate, mutable reference to each
object. This does not mean that logical const == const.
No I'm not. I'm keeping a portion of the object in a global AA. I'm not
storing a mutable reference to the object itself.
When you call a const function, *no data* that is defined within the data
of the object is modified. It is true logical const, not a hack (in
contrast, the example I gave in this thread is a hack).
-Steve
