Suggestion: object const'ness

[Hasan Aljudy]

I think you misunderstood me.
I'm ok with the current meaning of in/inout.

Derek Parnell wrote:
> On Sun, 21 May 2006 13:36:33 +1000, Hasan Aljudy 
> <hasan.aljudy at gmail.com>  wrote:
> 
> 
>> huh? if you pass an object reference as in you shouldn't be able to  
>> manipulate the object?!!
> 
> 
> Why not? What is the axiom that makes this so?
> 
>> In what sense is that a "true" in?
> 
> 
> There *is* no "true" 'in'. Each language has its own definition of 
> 'in'.  In D the 'in' just means you can't modify what ever has been 
> passed to the  function. And in the case of objects and arrays, it's the 
> reference that  is passed - thus you can't change the reference. There 
> is nowhere that  talks about protecting that which is referenced - only 
> the reference  itself.
> 
> If we learn to live with this, we can design our code around such a  
> concept.
> 
> Personally, I'd like the compiler to be a bit more helpful so I could 
> tell  it when I'm not intending something to be changed and it could 
> tell me  when it happens to detect that I'm accidently trying to change it.
>