DIP53 and DIP49 (ver2) - New definitions for qualified constructors and postblits

[Kenji Hara]

2013/12/19 Timon Gehr <timon.gehr at gmx.ch>

> The natural interpretation of a const constructor is that it constructs a
> const object directly. Such a constructor could eg. initialize a field
> declared with a mutable type using some external const reference.
>
> void foo(const(int[]) a){
>     // ...
>     struct S{
>         int[] a;
>         this()const{
>             this.a=a;
>         }
>     }
>     // ...
> }
>
> The DIP argues that such a construct is not particularly useful


Yes, that's one of the start point of my thoughts.


> and hence eliminates it for the purpose of using the syntax for a
> _different_ concept. There is no way to implement the above constructor
> using the new semantics.
>

No, that's not merely syntactic choice. The 'const' constructor/postblit is
a natural conclusion derived from the semantic meaning.

I tweaked descriptions in DIP to express it more clearly.

Kenji Hara
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20131219/a2f249d7/attachment.html>