On 03/12/2010 14:03, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Fri, 03 Dec 2010 08:22:01 -0500, Steven Schveighoffer
<schvei...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 03 Dec 2010 08:00:43 -0500, Bruno Medeiros
<brunodomedeiros+s...@com.gmail> wrote:
The above are not trivial differences, so I do not agree that it
constitutes full logical const, only a limited form of it. More
concretely, it doesn't constitute logical const in in the sense where
you can use that as argument to say "logical const already exists,
it's just clunky to use", so let's add it to the language formally.
Like if mutable members where just syntax sugar, or a betterment of
safety rules.
I disagree, I think it does prove logical const already exists. How do
you define logical const?
I'll add to this that synchronization issues can be handled. They should
not play a role in 'does logical const exist', they should only play a
role in 'does efficient logical const exist'.
-Steve
If by "does efficient logical const exist" you mean that we can devise
some language rules/changes to make logical const work in D in a safe
way, without losing the safety (and performance) guarantees that we have
with current D with regards to immutability and concurrency, then yes, I
think we can devise such a system. I definitely don't agree with Walter
that "Having mutable members destroys any guarantees that const
provides. " (unless we were to do it exactly like C++, which obviously
we wouldn't)
Whether it is desirable or not to implement such rules in D anytime soon
(if at all), well... that's another question altogether...
--
Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer
