On 07/11/2012 08:18 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 7/11/12 2:07 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 01:49:53PM -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 7/11/12 1:40 PM, Jakob Ovrum wrote:
Some classes don't lend themselves to immutability. Let's take
something obvious like a class object representing a dataset in a
database. How is an immutable instance of such a class useful?
This is a good point. It seems we're subjecting all classes to
certain limitations for the benefit of a subset of those classes.
[...]
Yes, that's what we've been trying to say for the last, oh, 100
messages? ;-)
I didn't see that, sorry. What's the closest quote?
Andrei
This is rather close, if put less eloquently:
On 07/11/2012 03:45 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
But why should I sprinkle my code with 'const' anyway? Almost
none of its classes will actually be instantiated with the immutable
qualifier.
This expresses the desire to classify objects into those that can
support the interface and those that cannot:
On 07/09/2012 01:44 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
// object.di
class RawObject { }
class Object : RawObject { ... }
// user.d
class C { } // inherits from Object
class D : RawObject { } // this does not
