On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 15:01:25 -0500 Michel Fortin <michel.for...@michelf.com> wrote:
> On 2010-12-06 14:46:51 -0500, spir <denis.s...@gmail.com> said: > > > On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 13:44:41 -0500 > > Michel Fortin <michel.for...@michelf.com> wrote: > > > >> Since we're speaking of the optional use of 'ref', here's a little quiz: > >> > >> alias Object A; > >> alias Object ref B; > >> > >> A ref a; > >> B ref b; > >> > >> What happens here? Should there be an error somewhere? Where? Also, > >> what happens if we apply different modifiers at different places? > > > > As I understand the (non-)semantics of 'ref', there should be no error. Thi > > s code should considered by the compiler as equivalent to: > > Object a; > > Object b; > > And that's what my patch does. It only gets confusing when you add modifiers: > > alias const(Object)ref A; > alias const(Object ref) B; > alias const(Object) C; > > A ref a; > B ref b; > C ref c; > > With my patch, variables 'a', 'b', and 'c' are all of the same type: > "const(Object)ref", the later 'ref' changing the constness of the > reference specified in the 'B' alias. Well, as your patch introduces the possibility to "const-en" the target of ref's, it _should_ have some meaning. Else, it leaves the language unconsistent, no? B & C are clearly synonym (constant references to objects), but A should not (references to constant objects). I see nothing wrong in having a type defined as one for <references to constant objects>, and in having this different from <constant references to objects>. Do I miss some point? > [...] Denis -- -- -- -- -- -- -- vit esse estrany ☣ spir.wikidot.com
