any news on const/invariant?

[Walter Bright]

Janice Caron wrote:
> On 11/26/07, Walter Bright <newshound1 at digitalmars.com> wrote:
>> At the beginning will still work for function types. The at the end
>> option is there for those who are building complex type declarations.
> 
> and
> 
>> No. "const char[] X;" and "const(char[]) X;" mean the same thing.
> 
> It seems to me that the following is still ambiguous:
> 
>     class A
>     {
>         int n;
>     }
> 
>     class B
>     {
>         const A f() { /*...*/ }
>     }
> 
> Does it mean (a)
> 
>     class B
>     {
>         const(A) f() { /*...*/ }
>     }
> 
> or does it mean (b)
> 
>     class B
>     {
>         A f() const { /*...*/ }
>     }
> 
> ?

(b). Think of it this way:

	const A f()

means:

	const (A f())

which applies the const to the function f, not A.


> Also, is it still possible to write
> 
>     class C
>     {
>         int n;
>         void f() invariant { /*...*/ };
>     }

Yes.

> (I put the keyword at the end to avoid confusion. In D2.007, you'd
> write "invariant" before "void"). My interpretation of the above code
> is that f is being called with a hidden parameter "this" of type
> "invariant(C)", which means that the function can never be called,
> unless by an invariant instance of C (since nothing implicitly casts
> to invariant). Have I got that right?

Yes.