On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 01:46:51 -0400, Kagamin <s...@here.lot> wrote:
Walter Bright Wrote:
Graham St Jack wrote:
> However, I still regard the language design decision of a class
> reference having the same constness as the object it refers to as a
> major language design problem.
We tried for months. It just doesn't work to make it any other way than
it is now.
Is it compiler infrastructure's or syntactical issue?
Syntactical. There is no way to separate the reference from the data,
since the reference is a hidden artifact of the type system.
With pointers it is easy, you apply const to the data, and not the
pointer. With arrays, same thing. I don't want to open up another
discussion of how to do it, we tried and tried for months with different
proposals, and nothing seemed very good. The only thing which would work
IMO is another const keyword.
-Steve
