Who wore it better?

[Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d]

On 04/15/2016 05:27 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On 4/15/16 5:01 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 04/15/2016 04:45 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>> On 4/15/16 4:34 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>>> On 04/15/2016 04:16 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>>>> If you find such advertisement useless, you of course do not need
>>>>> inout
>>>>> or const.
>>>>
>>>> Let's not exaggerate by putting them together. -- Andrei
>>>
>>> This is not an exaggeration.
>>
>> Jesus. C++ has const without inout. We used to have const without inout
>> - and we probably should again. -- Andrei
>
> "C++ has it" is a terrible argument.

You're losing track of the thread of the argument. It's not an argument, 
it's the factual correct refutation of your wrong claim.

> If you care about advertisement, you can't use templates to advertise
> whether something is const or not. Your solution is "let's use templates
> instead". That works, but obviously, compiler will let you molest
> whatever data you want. Then advertisement is done with documentation
> and trust.
>
> C++ simply doesn't have that capability to advertise const for the
> things inout can, but also const isn't as restrictive in C++, so you can
> put const on things that aren't really const. IIRC Walter says C++ const
> is useless for guarantees (and I agree with that).
>
> Tell me what the benefits of const are. Pretty much all the arguments
> you are saying for getting rid of inout (that don't involve corner cases
> we can fix) can be used to say we should get rid of const too. Why stop
> getting rid of complexity at inout?

The simple answer is const pays enough, inout doesn't.

Anyhow this meandering is the kiss of death - this exchange is becoming 
a time-wasting back and forth, exactly the kind I promised myself to not 
get involved in. I'll keep your good points in mind when deciding 
whether we should rid D of inout.


Thanks,

Andrei