On Tuesday, 1 April 2014 at 04:43:44 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
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'm pointing out the fix is not as trivial as slapping "const"
onto the signature. It requires a very real investment in terms
of development.
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.
Yes.
A const container that cannot be iterated over makes no sense
at all.
Iterating over something doesn't modify anything!!
Yes.
