On Wednesday, 11 July 2012 at 18:21:24 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
...
It also seems to allow abuses. For example:
class A
{
private int _x;
public @property x() const { return _x; }
}
class B : A
{
private int _x2;
public @property x() { return _x2++; }
}
Now I've completely changed the logistics of the x property so
that it's essentially become mutable. In effect, I overrode
the const piece of x completely to make it non-const without a
cast, and anyone calling x() on an A instance cannot trust that
it won't increment the effective value of x().
I think the solution to this overall problem is simply to make
object.opEquals use the most derived types available for
comparison.
-Steve
I thought about this example. You can have a const method
returning different values anyway (instead of returning what base
class' method would return), and A._x has not been mutated. From
my point of view, it is just a different concept, but arguably
not a worse one.
