Perhaps we need to defer const for a while (3.0?)

[Bruce Adams]

On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 13:28:21 -0000, Christopher Wright  
<dhasenan at gmail.com> wrote:

> Don Clugston wrote:
>> Walter Bright wrote:
>>> Russell Lewis wrote:
>>>> I made a passing reference to this in my original post, but I wanted  
>>>> to amplify it: D's const is a *huge* step forward from C++'s.
>>>
>>> I agree. And I've learned a hell of a lot in the process of working on  
>>> this design.
>>>
>>> It may even become a killer feature!
>>  Any plans for papers on it?
>
> The popular topics for papers are systems, algorithms, and experimental  
> stuff like AI. Under systems, it's networking, compilers, filesystems,  
> some other OS stuff like that.
>
> A paper about ensuring const-correctness efficiently in a language that  
> allows pointers might make it through. A paper about a good design for  
> const? I doubt it, unless you're familiar with journals that I'm not.

You'd be surprised. I remember reading an interesting paper about the  
properties
of pointers which contained a proof that labelling pointers as owned and
unowned made it possible to automate detection and absence of memory  
leaks. Papers
on constancy fill a similar niche.