Writing const-correct code in D

[Kevin Bealer]

In article <dun85t$33t$1 at digitaldaemon.com>, Kevin Bealer says...
>
>In article <dumhec$21bq$1 at digitaldaemon.com>, xs0 says...
>>
>>Kevin Bealer wrote:
>..
>>OK, this is like the 5000th post I've read regarding const correctness 
>>and related issues in D. Can we really not come to some kind of an 
>>agreement on what would be best? I'm sure if there's a consensus about a 
>>solution, Walter will eventually implement it.
>>
>..
>>- conceptually, each class definition (say Foo : Bar) produces two new 
>>types, "readonly Foo : readonly Bar" and "Foo : readonly Foo, Bar", the 
>>first of which only contains readonly methods, while the second contains 
>>all others. That makes it trivial to do verification and overloading, 
>>and has a nice feature that there is no need to actually compile the 
>>readonly version, as all verification is done statically, so there is no 
>>increase in code size etc.
>
>This sounds like it has nearly the same properties as what I'm proposing.  The
>main difference seems to be that you can designate methods as only usable in the
>readonly case.  (I'm not sure what that would be useful for, though.)
>
>Notice that the inheritance hierarchy described in the paragraph above is the
>*same* as what I wrote.

But that part got cut off (sorry bout that), you can find it in the second
thread by me with the same title. - Kevin

>My point, if you read my post, was that you don't need to introduce new keywords
>or syntax.  If you want or need the division between const/nonconst for a
>particular type, it can be written in existing D.
>
>Kevin
>
>