Possible way to achieve lazy loading with const objects

[Peter Alexander]

On 26/09/11 12:52 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 07:19:33 -0400, Peter Alexander
> <peter.alexander.au at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm happy to not have logical const in D provided that the Object
>> interface (and other similar interfaces) don't require that opEquals
>> is const or any nonsense like that. const means physical const, and
>> opEquals should not require physical const.
>>
>> IMO const/immutable should *only* be used when you need to pass things
>> between threads i.e. when you *really do* need physical const. If
>> people start using const like you would in C++ then every interface
>> just becomes unnecessarily restrictive.
>
> FYI, this is a bug, not a feature.
>
> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1824
>
> It *will* be fixed eventually. The fact that opEquals is not const is a
> huge problem.
>
> -Steve

I was arguing that opEquals (and co.) should *not* be const. IMO it 
would be a huge problem if they were.

Andrei says that it will (in a way) be both, so I'm happy with that.