On 18/03/2013 00:34, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Monday, March 18, 2013 01:20:40 Timon Gehr wrote:
So my question is "Why are the arguments to opEquals and opCmp (for
Objects) not declared in or const?".
Because not all valid implementations can be. They shouldn't be in
Object anyway.
Yeah. It was agreed that opCmp, opEquals, toString, and toHash would be
removed from Object, since they don't need to be there and cause unnecessary
issues with const,
What are these "unnecessary issues with const" they cause?
I agree with doing away with Object.opCmp as it doesn't make sense to pretend that
artibrary objects can be ordered in relation to each other. Not sure about the others.
But how would we go about this without causing far more disruption than making these
methods const would?
but AFAIK, no work has been done yet to make that that
work. I would of the things that would likely have to be finished first would be
the refactoring of the built-in AAs so that they're templated types
internally, and I'm sure that there are similar roadblocks that will need to
be sorted out. Long term though, none of that needs to be on Object and should
be left to derived classes to add with whatever constness (or @safety or
whatever) that is appropriate for them.
Why would some class want to implement these methods in a way that alters the
object?
Stewart.
--
My email address is valid but not my primary mailbox and not checked regularly. Please
keep replies on the 'group where everybody may benefit.
