On 01/12/2010 21:09, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 16:53:14 -0500, Walter Bright
<newshou...@digitalmars.com> wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
If you find the above unsurprising, you are in the minority. I find
it surprising, and invalid that anyone would write code this way.
People simply just don't do that normally. It's just written to
demonstrate a point that the compiler does not guarantee anything via
const, it's guaranteed by convention. The compiler simply helps you
follow the convention.
Ok, I see what you mean now. Your code is relying on there being a
mutable alias of the same object.
This is not surprising behavior. It is explicit in how const is
defined. It makes sense that const does not have immutable behavior,
because otherwise there wouldn't be both const and immutable type
constructors.
You're wrong in saying the compiler doesn't guarantee anything with
const. I listed the things it does guarantee.
The literal guarantee is that things aren't modified through that
reference.
So now you do agree that (D's) const does provide guarantees, right?
--
Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer
