Congratulations to the D Team!

[Timon Gehr]

On 07/11/2012 02:40 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> 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?

Once is sufficient. It will invade the code base because const is
transitive.

> It's not even recognized by this mailer's editor.
>
> Andrei
>
>

'lazy computation' is.