Poll: Would you like to try const-by-default or not?

Bruno Medeiros brunodomedeiros+spam at com.gmail
Mon Jun 11 07:24:16 PDT 2007


Bruno Medeiros wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
>> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>> * "having same type defaults is better for generics"
>>>   (maybe...but I'm not convinced. If you have powerful enough 
>>> metaprogramming it shouldn't be hard to strip const from a type 
>>> tuple, or add it.  And people do far more programming than 
>>> meta-programming.)
>>
>> This is a good point. With const-by-default, you have function type 
>> declarations behaving *fundamentally* different from other 
>> declarations. Given the metaprogramming ability to use tuples to 
>> declare parameters, doing function template type deduction for 
>> parameters, and type inference on parameters, making this 
>> fundamentally different may wind up really screwing things up.
> 
> Will using tuples to declare function parameters allow us to declare 
> ref/inout parameters?
> 

Nevermind, seems you already confirmed that in another post:

 > That's true, and it's one of the big motivators to support 'ref', as
 > then it becomes possible to make the parameter list a type tuple.


-- 
Bruno Medeiros - MSc in CS/E student
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D



More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list