const again
Christopher Wright
dhasenan at gmail.com
Thu Dec 6 16:27:58 PST 2007
Walter Bright wrote:
> Christopher Wright wrote:
>>> I've given up on tail const in any of its forms. The new regime has
>>> no tail const, no head const, it's just const, and fully transitive
>>> const at that.
>>
>> So if I have:
>> const(Foo)* t;
>> the pointer is const and points to a const Foo?
>
> No, it is a mutable pointer to a const Foo. A const pointer to a const
> Foo would be:
> const(Foo*) t;
>
>> Will that fail?
>
> Yes, because T[] will be the same thing as const(Foo)[]. Hiding it
> behind an alias and a template won't change that <g>.
So why do arrays take their const status from their elements when
pointers don't?
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list