On Monday, 31 March 2014 at 21:55:03 UTC, monarch_dodra wrote:
If opSlice was const, then you'd get a const slice, with const
reference. You wouldn't even be able to iterate on it.
const opSlice does not mean it returns a const(Range).
With some extra code, you could create some sort of "slice of
immutable" type, but you'd still only be able to get const
items.
Iterating over const items is the goal.
We *could* add a const *overload* but...
Or avoid using const for containers if you can.
That. D's "turtles all the way down" const doesn't work like
C++'s "head only" const. As a general rule, don't use too much
const in D, *especially* for containers-like objects...
At this point, adding a const overload would be nothing more
that a still unusable mess, with extra maintenance overhead.
Gotta disagree violently here. Asking for a const overload of
opSlice isn't "too much const". std.container is just in a sorry
state regarding const compatibility. That can and should be fixed.
