Jeremie Pelletier wrote:
Graham St Jack Wrote:
On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 21:28:18 -0400, Jeremie Pelletier wrote:
I agree that D lacks a mechanism to separate the object from it's
reference. Maybe syntax like the following could be used to
apply the storage class to the object value, and not the
reference value:
class Foo; void bar(in Foo& foo) {}
It's quite ugly and C-like, but that's the first thing that came
to mind. The reference value is unique to the current method and
shouldn't share the same storage qualifiers as it's referenced
memory.
I think the time for pining over this particular syntax feature of
D is over - as nice as it would be to be able to fix the problem in
the language, it would be too disruptive right now.
I think it would be better to fix it in D2 instead of patching a
language design flaw with a template. It wouldn't be the first time
D2 has changes that breaks existing code anyways (and the upcoming
T[new] will definitely break a lot of code, so does shared when it
works, etc), so it would be less disruptive to do it now than never
do it.
I agree with the sentiment. The issue is, however, that the change adds
a fair amount of complexity to the const system for an arguably
not-often-used need.
Andrei
