On Thursday, 18 February 2016 at 11:57:59 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
The problem that folks frequently want to be able to solve that
they simply cannot solve >with D's const (and headconst wouldn't
help) is that they want to be able to pass an object >to a
function that takes it as const or return a const object from a
const member function >and have stuff like reference counting,
caching, mutexes, etc. work - stuff that has to be >part of the
object (at least in pure code) but which isn't part of its
logical state and >cannot be const.
Is it not possible to have two objects, the data and the
information about the data? It seems like a mistake to try to
treat metadata as the data. I just ask out of interest as I lack
the experience to have a meaningful view, the category confusion
between data and metadata seems like a path to excessive
complexity.
