On 4/9/13 6:48 AM, deadalnix wrote:
On Tuesday, 9 April 2013 at 03:36:28 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 4/8/2013 5:39 AM, Manu wrote:
But D makes no further guarantee. I don't see how const in D is any
different
than const in C++ in that sense? That's basically the concept of
const, it's not
a useful concept for optimisation, only immutable is.
In C++, it is legal to cast away const and mutate it. That is
undefined behavior in D.
A D compiler can assume, for example, that a const reference passed to
a pure function will not mutate that reference, nor anything
transitively referred to by that reference. No such assumption can be
made like that in C++.
No, D have holes in its type system and so can't ensure anything. It has
been show many many many times, especially by Timon and myself, and I'm
kind of fed up to have to repeat that again and again, especiallt since
fix proposal have recieved no attention at all.
Stop claiming that such possibility exists, or take a serious look at
how to really ensure it.
Agreed. In parallel with work on improving quality, we also need to
carefully address all holes in the type system.
Andrei
