"Steven Schveighoffer" , dans le message (digitalmars.D:145415), a écrit : > On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 07:19:33 -0400, Peter Alexander > <peter.alexander...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I'm happy to not have logical const in D provided that the Object >> interface (and other similar interfaces) don't require that opEquals is >> const or any nonsense like that. const means physical const, and >> opEquals should not require physical const. >> >> IMO const/immutable should *only* be used when you need to pass things >> between threads i.e. when you *really do* need physical const. If people >> start using const like you would in C++ then every interface just >> becomes unnecessarily restrictive. > > FYI, this is a bug, not a feature. > > http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1824 > > It *will* be fixed eventually. The fact that opEquals is not const is a > huge problem. > > -Steve
Why would it be such a huge problem, as long as there is both non-const and const overload ?
