On 9/24/2011 7:31 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Well I suppose that it's a matter of semantics, but it's _not_ valid code,
because D's const is not a logical const and does not support logical const in
any way.
I think that's the gist of it. Logical const is NOT CONST in D.
The problem is the fact that there is no way in D to express the
particular paradigm that you want to express - logical const.
There is:
struct LogicalConst(T)
{
@property T v() {
if (!set) {
_v = some_expensive_computation();
set = true;
}
return _v;
}
private:
bool set = false;
T _v;
}
Granted, that's a different way of doing it than C++ does it, but it is
perfectly doable. It doesn't do anything dirty, unsafe, or underhanded. It isn't
a fraud. It's even typesafe.
