clayasaurus at gmail.com
Fri Jun 30 16:48:12 PDT 2006
John Reimer wrote:
> Deewiant wrote:
>> Deewiant wrote:
>>> Sean Kelly wrote:
>>>> I've become convinced that the "default everything to const" method
>>>> seems ideal, but this seems like something that should really be
>>>> done before 1.0 if it's going to happen?
>>> I agree. Walter posted somewhere in comp.lang.c++.moderated (I think
>>> it was there) that he thinks he should have made D like this from the
>>> start, but that it's too late now. With that, I disagree. We're not
>>> at 1.0 yet: it's not
>>> too late to break even every single line of D code out there.
>> I found the post in question, BTW. Here's the Google Groups link:
>> In summary:
>> Andrei Alexandrescu says "Why, then, didn't D make const the default?
>> C++ had a
>> good reason - C compatibility."
>> Walter responds: "I should have. Too much water under the bridge for
>> that now."
>> In the same post Walter also acknowledges that "There has been some
>> talk in the
>> D newsgroups of doing that, but it has the potential to be extremely
> Absolutely. we definitely need it. Walter, I hope you will reconsider.
> Many of us are more than willing to accept any of those potential
> disruptions. Success often comes only with risk. :)
> You've got this far with such an incredible language, why not take it
> all the way?
If it makes D better then add it. This goes for any feature. Of course
discuss disrupting features on the NG first.
More information about the Digitalmars-d