Constant relationships between non-constant objects
Jesse Phillips via Digitalmars-d
digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Tue Jun 17 20:36:52 PDT 2014
On Wednesday, 18 June 2014 at 02:26:25 UTC, Sebastian Unger wrote:
> But can you agree that it is AN important use case?
I can't say I support this claim either.
> If so, what was the rationale to not include a feature in D
> that has been used with great success in other languages?
D had 3 other const systems prior to its current state. This
system provided the needed guarantees with the least complexity.
Head-const would have added too much complexity for the benefit
(almost nothing).
> I'd stronly argue for D getting that feature. If I can't
> express some of the most basic constructs in OOD in D
Well, I always thought C++'s const was as described in this SO
response
http://stackoverflow.com/a/2736231/34435
"means this reference cannot be used to modify the instance"
The problem being C++ did not enforce this rule and people
started abusing it. And now they can't live without it.
But my confession is that I am not and could not ever call myself
a C++ programmer.
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list