Congratulations to the D Team!

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 7/11/12 12:59 AM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 04:59:28AM +0200, Jakob Ovrum wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 11 July 2012 at 02:02:52 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
>> wrote:
>>> On 7/10/12 9:45 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
>>>> I do not desire logical const as a language feature. But
>>>> conservative type systems are not good for everything. The root of
>>>> the class hierarchy needs to be good for everything. Object is not
>>>> an adequate root any more.
>>>
>>> How about we consider just stiffening that upper lip and implement
>>> comparison and hashing without modifying their target?
>>>
>>> Andrei
>>
>> It's more likely to go down like this: programmer attempts to write
>> his opEquals (or toString etc) within the restrictions of const, but
>> fails due to the requirements of the implementation (which can
>> easily go beyond simple performance measures like caching, as
>> demonstrated). The programmer then writes his own mutable member
>> function and neglects opEquals altogether. If the programmer is real
>> nice, he/she will write a throwing opEquals stub.
>
> This is exactly what I was saying. All that beautiful, pristine, perfect
> infrastructure we're building in druntime eventually just gets
> sidestepped, because it is unable to cater for what the programmer
> needs, and so the programmer ends up reimplementing his own
> infrastructure, over and over again. I can't see how that is beneficial.

How often do you need memoization? It's not even recognized by this 
mailer's editor.

Andrei