Purity, @safety, etc., in generic code

[deadalnix]

On Thursday, 21 February 2013 at 04:07:46 UTC, Steven 
Schveighoffer wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 21:50:01 -0500, deadalnix 
> <deadalnix at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, 20 February 2013 at 13:42:48 UTC, Steven 
>> Schveighoffer wrote:
>>> On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 01:00:00 -0500, deadalnix 
>>> <deadalnix at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> As discussed previously, I really wonder hy a const and non 
>>>> const version of a function can exists in a first place. 
>>>> What problem does it solve that isn't better solved by inout 
>>>> ?
>>>
>>> const(T) and T are different types.  Saying you can overload 
>>> on types, unless they just vary by const is a special case 
>>> that I don't think is worth adding.
>>>
>>
>> Explain me how the hell you overload on implicit parameter 
>> types ?
>
> A method is simply a function that takes a hidden parameter of 
> an object or struct.
>
> Really, a method with a signature Obj.foo() is a function with 
> a signature foo(Obj this)
>
> A const method Obj.foo() const is a function with a signature 
> foo(const(Obj) this)
>
> So it's equivalent to saying you can overload:
>
> foo(int *x)
> foo(const(int) *x)
>
> To disallow this would be unnecessarily restrictive.
>

That is called avoiding the question.