Possible way to achieve lazy loading with const objects

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 11:09:13 -0400, Christophe  
<travert at phare.normalesup.org> wrote:

> "Steven Schveighoffer" , dans le message (digitalmars.D:145738), a
>>> It is always possible for a non-const version of opEqual to forward to
>>> the const version, so people willing to use a const version do not have
>>> to define a non-const version.
>>
>> Again, you still need to define both, this is not a good situation.
>
> No, I didn't express myself correctly. The non-const version should
> forward to the const version *by default*.

Fine, but if you want to define a non-const version that *doesn't* call  
the const version, you have to define both.  So even if you *don't* want  
to deal with const, you still do.  I should have been clearer, sorry.

Note that the compiler currently calls a global method which accepts two  
non-const Objects.  In order for it to support both const and mutable  
versions, it would have to have 4 different functions.

I really don't think all this complexity is worth the benefit.  Just learn  
to use const properly, or don't use the operator system to do  
comparisons.  Object.opEquals should be const.

-Steve