On Fri, 04 Feb 2011 19:33:09 +0200, Walter Bright
<newshou...@digitalmars.com> wrote:
spir wrote:
On 02/04/2011 08:34 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Slices: just one more reason why D's arrays kick the pants of other
languages'
arrays...
What are the other ones?
Scope guard is another.
I would argue that transitive const is, too, but the benefits of that
are harder to see.
There are many features small in detail but superb in practice.
But still, i keep saying D has design errors as well, to me the biggest
one and maybe the main reason why D1 crowd is hostile to D2.
Const system (CS):
CS in theory a great thing, in practice it has many corner cases, simply
it doesn't worth having.
D had(still has) a chance to fix this issue in two different ways, either
avoid it or don't leave holes. This hole is not that explicit in C++
because it is not transitive.
Transitive const brings something with it... transitivity!
Now, what i mean with this:
---
struct A {
B whatever;
bool opEquals(A a) {
return whatever == a.whatever; // just comparision, this function is
const
}
bool anything(A a) {
whatever = 2; // here i have an assignment, this function is
not const
return whatever;
}
}
---
It doesn't matter what signature you use for the function, compiler is
aware and will output an error when you do the opposite of the signature.
If this is the case, why do we need that signature?
Its presence just makes things complicated and with actually no reason.
---
struct A {
B whatever;
bool opEquals(A a) {
return whatever == a.whatever;
}
}
const(A) a;
A b;
bool e = a == b;
----
Thanks;
