On 02/18/2012 10:06 PM, deadalnix wrote:
Le 18/02/2012 16:04, Timon Gehr a écrit :
For them, it is certainly safe. It is questionable how large the
effective benefit is for const, since the const qualifier would be
inherited for the method only, but not for its parameters.
The const qualifier does NEVER qualify a function. This is a
misconception.
I don't care whether or not it is a misconception. It is how the
language is defined. If you want to change this, file an enhancement
request.
In what we call const function, what is const is the
hhidden parameter "this", not the function.
Both are const. Ask the compiler.
struct S{
void foo()const{
static assert(is(typeof(this)==const));
static assert(is(typeof(foo)==const));
}
}
In fact, the incident that the method is const is what enables
contravariant overriding of mutable/immutable by const methods. (This is
not supported for the explicit formal parameter types.)
