Const Ideas

Craig Black cblack at ara.com
Fri Nov 30 11:19:53 PST 2007


"Craig Black" <cblack at ara.com> wrote in message 
news:fipnds$ktf$1 at digitalmars.com...
>
> "Robert Fraser" <fraserofthenight at gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:fipn3b$j8n$2 at digitalmars.com...
>> Craig Black wrote:
>>> const(ref) const X x;  // Everything is const, nothing is mutable
>>
>> One too many consts. I will not stand for any solution taht has "const" 
>> more than once in the declaration.
>
> Right.  I wasn't thinking straight when I proposed this as Janice pointed 
> out.
> Simply
>
> const X x;
>
> will do the trick.

I still like const(ref) though, but it doesn't solve the problem of allowing 
mutable references to const data.  That would would still require something 
like

const(X) x;

Which brings us back to where we are already.  Another idea is,

mutable(ref) const X x;

Which is convoluted.  Also I don't think that mutable is a keyword anyway. 





More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list