"Justin Johansson" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message news:i42ba3$1b...@digitalmars.com... > Nick Sabalausky wrote: >> "Justin Johansson" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message >> news:i424ac$27n...@digitalmars.com... >>> Graham St Jack wrote: >>>> Is there any plan to introduce some way of having a mutable reference >>>> to an immutable class object on the heap? Do others see this as a >>>> problem at all? >>> For embedded microsystems (i.e. with ROM/RAM) this is a problem. It >>> is a common use case to have a mutable reference (in RAM) to some >>> objects that reside in ROM. Obviously anything in ROM is guaranteed >>> by hardware to be immutable. So, yes, this is a problem in a >>> wider sense. >> >> Would there every really be anything in ROM though that would be >> appropriate as a class though, as opposed to, say, a struct? I've never >> heard of an object with a vtable being stored in ROM. > > Yes, well back in my embedded C++ days yes did so. But just because I > did doesn't necessarily make it a common use case. Strike 'common' > above and replace with 'valid. >
Interesting. > Anyway, what about a mutable reference to an immutable struct (in ROM)? Since structs are value types in D, wouldn't a reference to it (mutable or otherwise) *have* to be a pointer?