Fixing const arrays

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 12/11/11 1:30 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Sunday, December 11, 2011 01:16:28 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> To truly confer user-defined types the same capability, we should define
>> opPassByValue() which is implicitly invoked whenever an object is passed
>> by value into a function. By default that is a do-nothing operator; for
>> arrays it would do the cast thing (or, equivalently, invoke "[]" on the
>> array), and people could define it to do whatever. We could do all that.
>> The question is, is the added complexity justified?
>
> I think that it's completely justified. We need a way to define tail-constness
> for ranges. Given const's transitiveness, it's very easy to end up in a
> situation where you have a const range, and having a means to get a tail-const
> version of that range would be very valuable. I don't know if opPassByValue is
> the best solution, but if not, we at least need a similar one.

I'm not sure. How many times have you been in a place in life where you 
had a const range on your hands, that's not an array? I haven't.

Andrei