Next in Review Queue: The New std.path

[Lars T. Kyllingstad]

On Sat, 16 Jul 2011 00:17:03 +0800, KennyTM~ wrote:

> On Jul 16, 11 00:05, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> On Friday 15 July 2011 23:48:39 KennyTM~ wrote:
>>> On Jul 15, 11 23:26, Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
>>>>>>   So here you have had to use Unqual
>>>>>>   immutable(Unqual!C1)[] setExtension(C1, C2)(in C1[] path, in C2[]
>>>>>>   ext) immutable(Unqual!C1)[] defaultExtension(C1, C2)(in C1[]
>>>>>>   path, in C2[] ext)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   Instead of Unqual isn't it nicer to use a Deconst!() template?
>>>>
>>>> Hmm, I guess you're right.  "shared" shouldn't be stripped, for
>>>> instance.
>>>
>>> Given that immutable( const(char) ) == immutable(char), I think the
>>> Unqual! should simply be removed.
>>
>> I'd still put the Unqual in there. Perhaps it's due to compiler bugs,
>> but from what I've seen, it can get kind of funny when you try and have
>> an immutable const or a const immutable. Using  Unqual makes it very
>> clear what you mean.
>>
>> - Jonathan M Davis
> 
> OK. But I think you should file the compiler bug :) From what I see,
> it's that 'immutable' always win.
> 
> --------------------------
> alias const(char) CC;
> alias immutable(char) IC;
> alias immutable(CC) ICC;
> alias const(IC) CIC;
> pragma(msg, ICC);
> pragma(msg, CIC);
> --------------------------
> immutable(char)
> immutable(char)
> --------------------------

True, but this doesn't apply to the present case.  Since the parameters 
are marked with 'in', they become const(immutable(char)[]), not const
(immutable(char))[].  This isn't too hard to fix, but I prefer to use 
Unqual, Deconst, Mutable, or whatever it ends up being called.

-Lars