On Monday, 14 May 2012 at 02:57:57 UTC, Mehrdad wrote:
On Monday, 14 May 2012 at 02:48:20 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
But that's just one of the costs of const in D.
The problem is that it's unavoidable.
I.e. you can't say "don't Mark it as const if it isn't const",
because, practically speaking, it's being forced onto the
programmers by the language.
With const and immutable being transitive, there are cases when
there's things you want to do with an object after you've made it
and it's in a const structure. I know I've made a struct that was
intended to hold immutable data, however it refused to allow
methods to until const was appended to the signatures of the
functions. At first it was annoying; But when I see bigger
picture of why it makes much more sense.
Nothing we make 'has' to have const on it but inevitably they
may be used in a read-only way. I'm trying to think of it as my
structs and classes being as const-friendly as possible in those
cases.
