On Friday, 17 August 2012 at 02:49:45 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
But take this code for example:
auto i = new int;
*i = 5;
const c = i;
writeln(c);
func(c); //obviously takes const or it wouldn't compile
writeln(c);
The compiler _knows_ that c is the same before and after the
call to func, because it knows that no other references to that
data can exist.
Is there any reason why your example didn't just say
const(int*) c = null;
writeln(c);
func(c);
writeln(c);
i.e. What was the point of 'i' there?
And why can't a C++ compiler do the same thing?
'c' is a const object, so if C++ code was to modify it, it would
be undefined behavior, just like in D.
Sorry, I'm a little confused at what you were illustrating here.
