On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 06:22:14 -0400, Christophe
<trav...@phare.normalesup.org> wrote:
"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 ?
Having multiple overloads is not good either. Then you have to overload
both to have pretty much the same code.
Also note that the way the compiler compares objects is not conducive to
multiple overloads.
const covers all three constancies (mutable, const, immutable), why is
that one overload not enough?
One aspect which will be interesting to tackle (if desired at all) is
comparing shared objects. We *would* need another overload for that.
-Steve
