Extended Type Design.

[Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website For Email)]

Benji Smith wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website For Email) wrote:
>> Benji Smith wrote:
>>> I should also add that, in my opinion, any design where "const" means 
>>> something other than "value resolved at compile time and immutable at 
>>> runtime" would be a mistake.
>>
>> Then how would you call "value that's not mutable through this alias" 
>> in a way that's not going to turn C++ immigrants away?
>>
>> Andrei
> 
> I have no special love (nor contempt, of course) for C++ immigrants and 
> don't really care whether D conforms to their expectations.

Well, you see - quot capita, tot sententiae. :o) It's not about 
expectations as much as taking the good without the bad, while avoiding 
gratuitous incompatibilities. This is, I understand, high on Walter's 
priority list.

> I thought the point of D was to fix broken constructs from C++, and most 
> C++ programmers I know consider its implementation of const (and 
> especially how casting affects const) to be one of the prime offenders.

We know why C++ const is broken. The fact that it does not mean super 
const is not the reason.


Andrei