one step towards unification of std.algorithm and std.string

[Denis Koroskin]

On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 16:37:57 +0300, Andrei Alexandrescu  
<SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:

> grauzone wrote:
>> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> bearophile wrote:
>>>> I don't know C++ much, and I have to confess that I have to fully  
>>>> understand the const business still. I hope your book will teach me  
>>>> this topic very well :-)
>>>
>>> One thing about const that is slowly downing on this community is that  
>>> it will _not_ be used as often as in C++. It will be rare, and the  
>>> compiler and standard library should not require it without very good  
>>> reason. I think opEquals for classes is at fault for requiring const.
>>  Interesting statement. Does this apply to immutable as well, or only  
>> const? Because I thought const/immutable was supposed to make program  
>> logic clearer etc... That implied it would be heavily used in "normal"  
>> code. That's all a bit vague to me, care to clarify this a bit?
>
> The statement doesn't apply to immutable because C++ doesn't have it.
>
> Andrei

You won't be able to call opEquals on immutable objects if opEquals would  
require mutable pointer.