On Tuesday, 18 September 2012 at 19:30:24 UTC, Simen Kjaeraas
wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 16:56:31 +0200, Mehrdad
<wfunct...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, 15 September 2012 at 23:28:36 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
I wouldn't worry about it. I suspect that most C++
programmers think that references cannot be null.
Yeah, they can't be null _legally_.
Kind of like how in D you can't strip away const _legally_.
But the compiler doesn't complain if you don't obey the rules.
Well, D at least makes you jump through hoops to strip away
const,
What does this have to do with const?
while C++ assumes that however stupid the thing you seem to be
doing is, you probably intended to be that stupid.
Uhm, pardon? Not only is it irrelevant, it's also wrong:
It's harder to do that in C++ than in D.
In C++ you need const_cast (you shouldn't be using a C-style
casts at all).
In D all you have is cast(), and it's damn easy to strip away
const, especially when dealing with templates. And the compiler
doesn't complain either!
