const Propagation

[ketmar via Digitalmars-d]

On Mon, 29 Dec 2014 20:07:08 +0000
evenex via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:

> > Is that really cool? I mean, is wise to have the compiler treat 
> > templates and non-templates differently? C++ has tons of such 
> > inconsistencies which is the main reason I don't really like 
> > C++...
> 
> Well, it is reasonable in light of the fact that templates 
> require the source to be available (which guarantees the compiler 
> can analyze it) while regular functions might not be (e.g. if 
> they are in a precompiled library). In this sense, making a 
> function into a zero-param template is equivalent to telling the 
> compiler that it is free to analyze the source.
> That being said, I sympathize with the sentiment - it would be 
> more consistent if all functions whose source was available could 
> be auto-annotated. I'm not sure what the technical impediments to 
> this might be, though. Still, adding an extra () to the function 
> signature is not too inconvenient, and carries some additional 
> benefits.
> I find annotations and qualifiers to be part of the "ugly" side 
> of D, and try to avoid using them (took me awhile to figure out 
> that C++ style const-correctness doesn't work in D, due to 
> transitivity) but I'm afraid don't know enough about compilers to 
> make a more informed judgement than "that's just how it is." 
> Maybe someone with more experience in this area could weigh in?
you get it right. ;-)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20141229/0c979e5a/attachment.sig>