1.
Why are these two method header identitcal?
const Foo some_function() {
and
Foo some_function() const {
?
IMO that isn't consistent. IMO only the last is valid.
With this example, it is somewhat understandable.
// C++
class Bar {
const Foo getFooObj() const { ... }
const Foo& getFooObjRef const { ... }
};
// D
class Bar {
const(Foo) getFooObj() const { ... }
ref Foo getObjRef() { ... }
}
const(Foo) but ref Foo. This is inconsistency, if you ask me.
So why is between C++ and D such a huge difference?
Why isn't it simply const Foo instead of const(Foo)?
2.
What's about a shorthand for debug assertions?
E.g. to avoid not-null references (yes, if you're a windows user,
you hate them):
Example:
[code]
void some_function(Foo !f) {
[/code]
will automatically converted by the compiler into:
[code]
void some_function(Foo f, string filename = __FILE__, uint line =
__LINE__) in {
assert(f !is null, format("Null Object @ file %s on line
%d.", filename, line));
} body {
[/code]
That would be avoid many many efforts by writing safe code. And
it avoids Java code stil with explizit pre- and postconditions
which blows up code.
