On 12/7/10 7:05 AM, Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2010-12-07 09:05:20 -0500, Jason House <[email protected]>
said:
Michel Fortin Wrote:
The point is that the 'ref' in in the 'b' and 'c' variable declaration
has the effect of changing the ref from B and C from const to mutable,
even for B where the ref was explicitly specified to be const. I was
wondering if some people would find that surprising, but if I
understand you well that's what you expect when seeing this, right?
I've been wondering if it makes more sense for 'ref' to be a storage
class rather than some kind of type constructor. Doing that would make
the typedef's with ref be illegal. It'd also make foo!(const(T) ref)
be illegal as well as (const(T) ref)[]. As a storage class, it can
only be added to variable declarations.
I think the array case would be missed. I'm not sure what people would
think of the template case, especially when it pops up in code such as
foo!(typeof(x)). If ref isn't a storage class, then generic
programmers will need an equivalent to unqual that only strips the
outer-most ref. As a storage class typeof would not return the ref.
How do templates work with your patch?
From my tests, templates work as they should. For instance, I can
easily call std.algorithm.sort on an array of const(Object)ref.
Does it work on a general random-access range? Generally, does the
feature have a solution for all issues discussed?
Andrei
