I think a possible approach is this:
struct Container(T)
{
struct Range(U) { ... }
Range(T) opSlice() { ... }
Range(const T) opSlice() const { ... }
}
This is rather new territory. We'll need to find the best idioms.
Andrei
On 08/12/2010 11:03 AM, Steve Schveighoffer wrote:
Where does this leave custom range structs, such as those for containers or
wrapped ranges such as retro? Most interesting ranges are not arrays.
There is currently no way to implicitly cast or match an overload based on how
you parameterize your range, and inout will not work with it.
-Steve
----- Original Message ----
From: Andrei Alexandrescu<[email protected]>
To: Discuss the phobos library for D<[email protected]>
Sent: Thu, August 12, 2010 11:54:35 AM
Subject: Re: [phobos] is*Range + Qualified Types
Exactly. I vividly remember our (Bartosz, Walter, me) discussion that settled
this - the competing approach was to define distinct syntactic constructs for
"head const", "tail const", and "all const".
Back then we decided that three flavors of const (and three of immutable)
would be unacceptable as too complex. We decided that tail const for arrays was
already possible syntactically (const(T[]) vs. const(T)[]) and that we'll leave
libraries to define their own const(Artifact!T) vs. Artifact!(const T) if they
so need.
I think it's okay to change the compiler to automatically convert const(T[])
to const(T)[] upon any function call. The function's parameter is private
anyway. There's hardly any loss of information - I doubt a function could
actually be interested in that distinction.
Andrei
David Simcha wrote:
Ok, now I get why using Unqual to get tail const wouldn't work. My silly
oversight:
// The following doesn't work, though the natural tail
// const for const(Cycle!(int[])) is Cycle!(const(int)[]),
// because Unqual!(const(Cycle!(int[]))) == Cycle!(int[]).
import std.range, std.traits;
void main() {
const myRange = cycle([1,2,3,4]);
pragma(msg, typeof(myRange));
Unqual!(typeof(myRange)) myRangeMutable = myRange;
pragma(msg, typeof(myRange));
}
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Steve Schveighoffer<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Tail-const is doable, but does not enjoy the implicit conversion
that T[] has.
Without the implicit conversion, tail-const relies on unsafe
casting, and that
sucks.
I agree with Andrei we need a language solution. The question
really is not
what the solution should do, that much is clear -- apply const to a
subset of
the members (either all references or members designated by some
identifier).
The question is, what does the syntax look like. That was the major
stumbling
block that flipped Walter's switch to "tail-const doesn't work".
I think we should concentrate on structs and not class references,
since class
references have no syntax that separates the reference from the
data. At least
with structs, you can identify the parts to apply const to. We have
a somewhat
clunky solution in Rebindable for classes, so it would be nice to
include them,
but past experience has shown that to be a big rat hole.
-Steve
>
>From: David Simcha<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
>To: Discuss the phobos library for D<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
>Sent: Thu, August 12, 2010 11:28:24 AM
>Subject: Re: [phobos] is*Range + Qualified Types
>
>
>
>
>On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 1:43 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
>
>>
I think the main argument is that currently most of std.algorithm
doesn't work
with const arrays, which have a simple "tail-const" version.
const(T[]) is
implicitly convertible to const(T)[].
>>
>>That doesn't apply to most other ranges, which don't have an
obvious
>>"tail-const" version.
>>
>>David, I think we need to think through a bit more before
proceeding. The way I
>
>>assume you want to proceed is to essentially add a special
function signature
>>for each algorithm and have it forward to the peeled version.
Perhaps we could
>>look at a simpler solution, e.g. one that would involve a
language change.
>>
Fair enough. If you think this might be better solved at the
language level,
that's a worthwhile discussion to have. I do believe, though, that
most ranges
besides T[] do have an obvious "tail-const" version, since in
practice most
ranges are structs that have the iteration state stored inline and
only use
indirection to store the payload, if anywhere.
At any rate, I think this is a must-solve problem. Despite its
theoretical
beauty, I find D's const/immutable system to be utterly useless (and
I've made a
serious attempt to use it in a real multithreaded program) for all
but the
simplest cases in practice, for three reasons:
1. It's too hard to create non-trivial immutable data structures,
especially
without relying on unchecked casts during construction.
2. So many things in Phobos (even things as simple as
std.math.pow() before I
recently fixed it) behave incorrectly when given const/immutable
data. This
also applies to other libraries I use, including ones that I'm the
main author
of, so I'm just as guilty of it as anyone. Given that noone,
including me,
seems to be able to get this right in generic code, perhaps this
does point to
the need for a language-level solution.
3. inout is currently so bug-ridden it's not even funny.
_______________________________________________
phobos mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
phobos mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
_______________________________________________
phobos mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
_______________________________________________
phobos mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
_______________________________________________
phobos mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
