On 09/12/2010 18:12, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Thu, 09 Dec 2010 12:01:47 -0500, Bruno Medeiros
<brunodomedeiros+s...@com.gmail> wrote:
On 29/11/2010 21:13, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 15:55:10 -0500, Kagamin <s...@here.lot> wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
My favorite in recent times is:
@tail const(C) tailconst;
Tail const is a type constructor, but I don't think that annotations
should evolve that far.
What I liked about that is it is orthogonal to the constancy. That is,
with one annotation you get tail-const, tail-immutable, and tail-shared.
By saying that @tail is a type constructor, do you mean it can be
applied to any const/immutable, anywhere they appear? Like, how do you
declare a class var to be head-const and tail-immutable?
@tail immutable(const(T))
Or an array of tail-const classes?
@tail const(C)[]
The @tail only applies to the modifier, not to the rest of it. It
modifies const.
Ok, what about a head-const array of tail-immutable classes?
And would this be allowed: Foo!(@tail const(C)) ?
BTW, this idea was shown to be too complex for use because of two
things: 1. the prospect of having to define both const and @tail const
member functions is way too complex for normal people, and 2. member
functions *always* pass the 'this' pointer by reference on a struct, so
you couldn't call for instance an immutable function on a tail-immutable
type.
-Steve
I was commenting on the syntax aspect only (because it actually seems
quite bad to me, not very orthogonal). And both issues above would apply
to any tailconst syntax, because they are really about tailconst itself.
--
Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer
