[Issue 1961] Allow "scoped const" contracts

d-bugmail at puremagic.com d-bugmail at puremagic.com
Sun Apr 27 11:08:48 PDT 2008


http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1961





------- Comment #8 from brunodomedeiros+bugz at gmail.com  2008-04-27 13:08 -------
(In reply to comment #7)
> How is this problem solved currently in D? I had the impression there was a way
> to do it, but I can't remember it, and I couldn't it find in the documentation
> either. Or am I mistaken, and there is no way to do it in D (without creating 3
> distinct functions)? 

I've just updated myself on D's const system and on old unread posts about
const. I found that I was mistaken, and that D didn't already provide a
mechanism to do what "scoped const" does.
More unexpectedly, I found that it seems neither Walter nor Andrei had thought
of this issue before (I assume this from Andrei because of his "Looks
interesting." comment... I could be wrong)
I find this woefully disconcerting due to the reasons detailed here:
http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=70593
. (basicly Walter and Andrei seem to be ignorant of a very good and thorough
article about a const system proposal for Java, unnecessarily hitting the wall
on several issues)

Back to proposal at hand, it seems the main question now is this one:

Walter Bright wrote:
> 
> For me, the question is is solving these issues a large enough problem 
> that justifies adding a rather confusing new variation on const?


-- 



More information about the Digitalmars-d-bugs mailing list