On Wednesday, 2 May 2012 at 04:05:11 UTC, Mehrdad wrote:
Okay, so let's say you're right
void process1(Student s) { .. }
void process2(const(Student) s) { ... }
and that what I guess what I REALLY want is to say,
"process1() won't change the student's name, birthday, or any
other attribute, but process2() will".
How do you propose I make that guarantee known to the
compiler/caller?
What about the object do you want const? How should this object
normally change things? It looks like the way you've coded it,
your connection will get information off of a server. Does
const(Student) mean that it shouldn't write to the server? If so,
use something akin to a compile-time dependency injection ...
specify that one of those students has a read-only connection.
Something like Student!StudentDBConnection might work, and then
maybe Student!const(StudentDBConnection).
Is that not the entire point of saying "const(Student)" in the
first place?
"const(Student)" means I won't change _anything_ about the
object. It's const. So in a sense, you can say that you won't
change the fields name, birthday, etc. That means you can't
change the fields.
