const(Object)ref is here!

[Jason House]

Jason House Wrote:

> Jonathan M Davis Wrote:
> 
> > On Sunday 05 December 2010 23:59:58 so wrote:
> > > On Mon, 06 Dec 2010 02:51:32 +0200, Michel Fortin
> > > 
> > > <michel.fortin at michelf.com> wrote:
> > > > <http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5325>
> > > 
> > > Great!
> > > 
> > > > See the strange predicate for the const(Object) version? That's because
> > > > opCmp() in Object doesn't work with const.
> > > 
> > > For the same reason opEquals acting funny with const?
> > 
> > Neither are marked as const on Object itself, and that needs to happen for 
> > Object to be const correct. toHash() and toString() (or writeFrom() or whatever 
> > it's going to become) have the same problem. None of them are const in Object.
> > 
> > - Jonathan M Davis
> 
> If object did that, things deriving from Object could not be lazy or memoize. It occurs to me that things deriving from object should be able to use const-correct functions and still compile. I don't have a D compiler handy or I'd see how well dmd handles that. I'd expect changing an input argument from T to const(T) should work since it's expanding the range of valid inputs. Similarly, the method itself should be able to become const since that too is expanding the valid input (to the implicit first argument).

I should have added: if anyone tests making derived object's methods const-correct and it fails to compile, then it should be filed into bugzilla.