Why are opEquals/opCmp arguments not in or const for Objects?

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Monday, March 18, 2013 01:20:40 Timon Gehr wrote:
> >> So my question is "Why are the arguments to opEquals and opCmp (for
> >> Objects) not declared in or const?".
> > 
> > Because not all valid implementations can be. They shouldn't be in
> > Object anyway.

Yeah. It was agreed that opCmp, opEquals, toString, and toHash would be 
removed from Object, since they don't need to be there and cause unnecessary 
issues with const, but AFAIK, no work has been done yet to make that that 
work. I would of the things that would likely have to be finished first would be 
the refactoring of the built-in AAs so that they're templated types 
internally, and I'm sure that there are similar roadblocks that will need to 
be sorted out. Long term though, none of that needs to be on Object and should 
be left to derived classes to add with whatever constness (or @safety or 
whatever) that is appropriate for them.

- Jonathan M Davis