Inability to dup/~ for const arrays of class objects

[monarch_dodra]

On Wednesday, 29 May 2013 at 12:23:04 UTC, Jakob Ovrum wrote:
> On Wednesday, 29 May 2013 at 09:40:08 UTC, monarch_dodra wrote:
>> whereas D's means "This object's value WILL remain constant, 
>> until the end of time, and under no circumstance can it ever 
>> be modified. Oh. And so will everything it references".
>
> That's NOT what D's const means! The data may change through 
> other, mutable references to it, but not through any const 
> references. That's why const data is not implicitly convertible 
> to immutable data (unless it has no mutable indirection, in 
> which case it would be a deep copy) - there could be mutable 
> references out there!
>
> The difference between C++ and D const is that D's const is 
> transitive, and mutating it by casting away const can have 
> terrible consequences because const is designed to work with 
> immutable.
>
>> The fact that *you* are promising to not change it is 
>> irrelevant to the concept of D's const. D only knows 2 states: 
>> objects that mutate, and objects that don't mutate.
>
> No.
>
>> *Once you've casted something to const, make sure that NOTHING 
>> will modify the object via a non-const handle.
>
> This is *perfectly fine* unless the non-const handle was 
> acquired by casting away const or immutable.

Hum.

...

Sight. I think I let immutable get to my head again :/

You are right. My point was moot.