Proposal for scoped const contracts
Roberto Mariottini
rmariottini at mail.com
Wed Mar 26 03:48:43 PDT 2008
Walter Bright wrote:
> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> It is basically an idea for scoped const. The main goal is so that
>> one can specify that a function does not modify an argument without
>> affecting the constness of the input.
>
> I understand what you're asking for, and it does solve some issues. It's
> almost exactly the same as the "return" qualifier I'd bandied about last
> summer:
>
> T foo(return T t);
>
> where the 'constness' of the argument for t is transmitted to foo's
> return type at the point of call of foo(), not at the point of
> definition of foo. This implies, of course, that foo cannot change t
> itself.
>
> For me, the question is is solving these issues a large enough problem
> that justifies adding a rather confusing new variation on const?
If I understand correctly this could be achieved with the plain old
'final' keyword. Am I right?
Ciao
--
Roberto Mariottini, http://www.mariottini.net/roberto/
SuperbCalc, a free tape calculator:
http://www.mariottini.net/roberto/superbcalc/
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list