Inheritance of purity

[Gor Gyolchanyan]

This doesn't make any sense. The const-ness of *this* is the logical
and obvious reason why methods overload on const. *this* is just as
good an valid parameter as everything other ones despite the fact,
that its hidden. The signature of two functions differ between *this*
parameter has different types. There we go: sensible overloading and
const never refers to the function itself.
The fact, that it does currently is a big bug, IMO.

On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 1:18 AM, Timon Gehr <timon.gehr at gmx.ch> wrote:
> On 02/18/2012 10:06 PM, deadalnix wrote:
>>
>> Le 18/02/2012 16:04, Timon Gehr a écrit :
>>>
>>> For them, it is certainly safe. It is questionable how large the
>>> effective benefit is for const, since the const qualifier would be
>>> inherited for the method only, but not for its parameters.
>>>
>>
>> The const qualifier does NEVER qualify a function. This is a
>> misconception.
>
>
> I don't care whether or not it is a misconception. It is how the language is
> defined. If you want to change this, file an enhancement request.
>
>
>> In what we call const function, what is const is the
>> hhidden parameter "this", not the function.
>
>
> Both are const. Ask the compiler.
>
> struct S{
>    void foo()const{
>        static assert(is(typeof(this)==const));
>        static assert(is(typeof(foo)==const));
>    }
> }
>
> In fact, the incident that the method is const is what enables contravariant
> overriding of mutable/immutable by const methods. (This is not supported for
> the explicit formal parameter types.)



-- 
Bye,
Gor Gyolchanyan.