Congratulations to the D Team!

[deadalnix]

On 11/07/2012 17:03, Jakob Ovrum wrote:
> On Wednesday, 11 July 2012 at 12:36:43 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> I was a long-time proponent of this. It's less exciting than it may
>> seem actually.
>>
>> (a) Classes that work with const just fine incur one extra virtual
>> call. I think this can be avoided by having the compiler plant the
>> same pointer for the const and non-const version in the vtable.
>>
>> (b) Classes that can't do as little as one of these four operations
>> without mutating the object are completely excluded from the
>> immutability system, even if they'd otherwise benefit from it. Even
>> those that don't "care" they need to actively _work_ on not caring,
>> which doesn't sit well.
>>
>> So I don't see this as a viable solution to people who are fine with
>> const, but would like to use e.g. some lazy computation.
>>
>>
>> Andrei
>
> This solution is not for allowing people to use lazy computation in
> their const overrides, it's for allowing people to still use opEquals,
> toString etc. even if their implementations cannot and should not be const.
>

In this case, they have function that does something else than compare 
test for equality, etc . . . The overload make no sense here in the 
first place, and the fact that const break such thing isn't a problem. 
This is the other way around, the fact that const break such a practice 
is good.