Trass3r wrote:
> >In TDPL const/immutable are type qualifiers. Type qualifier is a
> >synonym for type modifier, isn't it? And I know storage classes like
> >static/ref. In C you have the type qualifiers const, volatile, and
> >restrict and the storage classes auto, register, static, extern. Now
> >const in D is a storage class?
>
> I also think const char* x in D2 is equal to const(char*) x while a
> direct translation would be const(char)* x
> So you might use the former version to keep compatibility with D1.
Haven't thought about that.
Right. In D2 const T* is equal to const(T*).
Let's check all the possible cases:
void foo(const int *non_const_ptr_to_const,
char *const const_ptr_to_non_const,
const float *const const_ptr_to_const);
In D2 you cannot express char *const. That's due to the transitivity of
const. You can only do a const char* which is a constant pointer to
constant.
That's why I think foo should become in D2
void foo(const int*, char *, const(float*));
What do you think?
I do not know much about D1. Is const transitive in D1?
I think the page http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/const3.html should not
talk about storage class in regard to const and immutable.
Jens
