To help LDC/GDC

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 4/9/13 6:48 AM, deadalnix wrote:
> On Tuesday, 9 April 2013 at 03:36:28 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 4/8/2013 5:39 AM, Manu wrote:
>>> But D makes no further guarantee. I don't see how const in D is any
>>> different
>>> than const in C++ in that sense? That's basically the concept of
>>> const, it's not
>>> a useful concept for optimisation, only immutable is.
>>
>> In C++, it is legal to cast away const and mutate it. That is
>> undefined behavior in D.
>>
>> A D compiler can assume, for example, that a const reference passed to
>> a pure function will not mutate that reference, nor anything
>> transitively referred to by that reference. No such assumption can be
>> made like that in C++.
>
> No, D have holes in its type system and so can't ensure anything. It has
> been show many many many times, especially by Timon and myself, and I'm
> kind of fed up to have to repeat that again and again, especiallt since
> fix proposal have recieved no attention at all.
>
> Stop claiming that such possibility exists, or take a serious look at
> how to really ensure it.

Agreed. In parallel with work on improving quality, we also need to 
carefully address all holes in the type system.

Andrei