On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 09:55:01PM +0000, monarch_dodra wrote: > On Monday, 31 March 2014 at 21:41:16 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: > >Argh, why is opSlice non-const? :-( Please file a bug. > > If opSlice was const, then you'd get a const slice, with const > reference. You wouldn't even be able to iterate on it. [...]
Um... wat? I didn't say opSlice should return a const object (that would be ridiculous, as you point out). Rather, it should return a tail-const range that iterates over the const items in the const list. A const container that cannot be iterated over makes no sense at all. Iterating over something doesn't modify anything!! T -- Ruby is essentially Perl minus Wall.
