Extended Type Design.
Tyler Knott
tywebmail at mailcity.com
Thu Mar 22 19:46:40 PDT 2007
Bruno Medeiros wrote:
> Well, yes, but is 'invariant' transitive like const? I think it is (but
> I'm not sure, I'm getting a bit lost in the thread), and if it is, those
> semantics won't work. I.e., "typeof(&foo) " in my example can't be
> invariant anything.
>
D'oh, of course! It's legal to modify data referenced by foo, which makes it incompatible with invariant pointers, but
which is fine for const pointers. I think const pointer is the correct answer for typeof(&foo).
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list