On Wednesday, 18 December 2013 at 22:26:32 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
The natural interpretation of a const constructor is that it
constructs a const object directly. Such a constructor could
eg. initialize a field declared with a mutable type using some
external const reference.
void foo(const(int[]) a){
// ...
struct S{
int[] a;
this()const{
this.a=a;
}
}
// ...
}
The DIP argues that such a construct is not particularly useful
and hence eliminates it for the purpose of using the syntax for
a _different_ concept. There is no way to implement the above
constructor using the new semantics.
Just my 2 cents: I have to agree. The const can be confusing and
making it so that a different concept cannot be implemented
really looks like a bad idea.
