"Steven Schveighoffer" , dans le message (digitalmars.D:145729), a >> I was arguing that opEquals (and co.) should *not* be const. IMO it >> would be a huge problem if they were. > > why? For what purpose do you need to change an object during comparison?
You may not need to change the object, but you may need to call a non-const method. It has been argued against the opponent to transitive const that they are not obliged to use const. Then opEqual should not oblige them to use const. const is so viral in D that people not willing to use const will have to change lines and lines of code to get opEqual working. It is always possible for a non-const version of opEqual to forward to the const version, so people willing to use a const version do not have to define a non-const version. -- Christophe
