Congratulations to the D Team!

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 7/11/12 1:04 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
> On 07/11/2012 06:45 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 7/11/12 12:30 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>>> It *is* a problem when you're talking about abstractions. If I have
>>> million node binary trees and I'm testing for equality, I'd like to be
>>> able to cache the results. But being forced to use const means I can't
>>> cache anything. And this isn't just about caching; if my tree is
>>> partially stored in the database, and I have a DB connection object in
>>> my tree class, then I can't use opEquals because I can't modify the DB
>>> state (which is impractical if I have to actually use it to make DB
>>> queries -- the DB engine may have to cache DB pages, etc.). Any
>>> abstraction of opEquals beyond the bitwise level cannot be implemented.
>>
>> How about the static hash/cache?
>>
>> Andrei
>
> Will break horribly as soon as it is discovered that the methods should
> be pure as well.

I don't think they should be pure. Do you have reasons to think otherwise?

Andrei