any news on const/invariant?

[0ffh]

Walter Bright wrote:
> Ok, let's assume C++ is intuitive, consistent, and logical. Given:
> 
> const int *p;
> 
> what makes more logical, intuitive sense?
> 
> 1) p is a non-constant pointer to const int?
> 2) p is a const pointer to a non-const int?
> 3) p is a const pointer to a const int?
> 
> I doubt you'll get a consistent answer from programmers who aren't 
> already very used to the wacky C++ semantics.

Okay, you can take me as one sample, I suck at C++! Hah!
I haven't even followed the thread very closely... =)
I'd expect... hmmm... option 1: I'd think *p is an int (p being
the pointer), it's just not an int but a const int.
But I really couldn't be sure, and would probably look it up...

Btw. wouldn't it be "const int* p" in D?
Just changing the spacing makes me re-think my answer! Argh!

> I doubt people will be confused by it for more than 5 minutes, and then 
> it will make sense. I find the D version of const much more intuitive, 
> from a logical, consistency point of view, than the C++ one.

I guess now I'll have to go and look up both!

>> So I guess I can see people getting used to this.  So the question 
>> again becomes why allow the at-the-end syntax too?  Isn't one syntax 
>> enough? 
> 
> It's a good question. Note that D allows both C-style and D-style array 
> declarations. It makes it easier to convert C code over to D code.

Actually, when it comes to array declaration style, I wouldn't care if the
old style was dropped in D. The new one works fine (for me), and there are
some good arguments for having just OWTDI.

regards, frank