std.container.RedBlackTree versus C++ std::set

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Friday, February 15, 2013 22:41:24 Namespace wrote:
> Again: My intention was not const&.

I know. What I'm saying applies in general.

> And you're right, but there was so many discussions about const&
> (since dmd 2.057; also in the last few days) and as every
> discussion here: after page 2 is the topic changed.
> I'm also very sure that neither Walter nor Andrei see a
> (important) reason for something similar as const& because they
> don't need it. And if you don't need something, the priority for
> such thing is very low.
> So everything we can do (after that much requests and
> discussions) is to wait what and when they will decide something.
> I count the versions.

They definitely agree that it's a problem. They just don't see it as having as 
high a priority as you do. For instance, as far as ref-related problems go, 
the issue that DIP 25 covers is something that they consider to be a much 
bigger issue (since it deals with @safe and SafeD). It'll be fixed though. It's 
just a question of how and when.

- Jonathan M Davis