Could someone mention a case where it is __necessary__ to cast away const()?
How about immutable()?
How about shared()?
On 02-05-2012 17:58, Mehrdad wrote:
Could someone mention a case where it is __necessary__ to cast away
const()?
How about immutable()?
How about shared()?
shared? Almost always in any non-trivial application. shared is only
useful if you're dealing with templatized functions that can actually
On Wednesday, 2 May 2012 at 16:52:33 UTC, Alex Rønne Petersen
wrote:
shared? Almost always in any non-trivial application. shared is
only useful if you're dealing with templatized functions that
can actually handle it, which is not the case as often as one
would like.
Additionally, shared is
Okay, that's for shared.
What about const though?
On Wed, 02 May 2012 12:59:34 -0400, David Nadlinger
wrote:
On Wednesday, 2 May 2012 at 16:52:33 UTC, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
shared? Almost always in any non-trivial application. shared is only
useful if you're dealing with templatized functions that can actually
handle it, which is no
On Thursday, 3 May 2012 at 13:40:41 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On Wed, 02 May 2012 12:59:34 -0400, David Nadlinger
wrote:
Additionally, shared is currently little more than a marker
for non-TLS data.
No, it's very important that it is a type constructor. For
example, it makes weak-pur
Hi folks,
it was really good and productive discussion on const and
immutability,
special thanks for those (Jonatan,Steven,Cris,etc) who answered
hard Mehrad's questions and clarified so important topics.
Can I kindly ask you folks to update FAQ on the site to have
ability for newcomers to
