A paper about traps and programming stress

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 17:27:26 -0400, Walter Bright  
<newshound1 at digitalmars.com> wrote:

> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 17:18:39 -0400, Walter Bright  
>> <newshound1 at digitalmars.com> wrote:
>>
>>> bearophile wrote:
>>>> Glad to see that the answers I've written for that article aren't  
>>>> useless.
>>>> But someone else has to file this bug because I am am not expert  
>>>> enough to
>>>> write it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3977
>>  Gah, I knew I'd be too late :)  Took me a while to find it.
>>  Marked as a duplicate of  
>> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2095
>
> It seems this bug keeps getting rediscovered!

It's not really an easy problem to solve.  With const, it sort of works,  
but now all the objects are treated as const, whereas the thing you really  
want to treat as const is the class references and array (head-const).   
Imagine if you wanted to call a mutable method on each of the array  
objects as defined by the base-class.  Such an operation is not invalid.

I feel like we will eventually need to correctly solve these types of  
problems.  I think it could already be done using alias this for custom  
types, but the builtins would need to be treated specially.

-Steve