All right, all right! Interim decision regarding qualified Object methods

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Thursday, July 12, 2012 11:07:42 Mehrdad wrote:
> On Thursday, 12 July 2012 at 08:40:25 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > it does appear to solve the const issues that we've been having
> > quite nicely
> 
> How would we expect people to deal with these const issues when
> the issues come up in their own libraries?
> 
> Or do we not care?

The issue that we're trying to solve here is making opEquals, opCmp, toHash, 
and toString work both for const and non-const objects. That's it. We're not 
talking about revamping const. It doesn't need it. I know that you're unhappy 
with how const works in D, but as a group, we do not believe that it is 
fundamentally broken. Rather, this particular situation where OO and const 
collide needs a solution. _That_ is what we're trying to solve.

That may mean that you can't use const in your code, because what you're 
trying to doesn't work with D's const. But taking care of this issue with 
opEquals, opCmp, toHash, and toString will make avoiding const easier for 
those that need to for their particular code base.

- Jonathan M Davis