On 2011-05-18 10:46:19 -0400, Timon Gehr said:
Given that reference types do not support the semantics asked for at all (with
transitive const/immutable), I think this is as consistent as it can get. (also
way better than "obj" all over the place.)
Am I correct when I assume that, if Foo is a c
> On 2011-05-17 23:48:35 -0400, Andrej Mitrovic
> said:
>
> > So how do functions which take such a parameter look like?
>
> What do you mean by what they'll look like? They'll look like how you
> wrote them. I'm not sure I understand the question... but I'll still
> try to answer.
>
>
> > void ba
On 2011-05-17 23:48:35 -0400, Andrej Mitrovic
said:
So how do functions which take such a parameter look like?
What do you mean by what they'll look like? They'll look like how you
wrote them. I'm not sure I understand the question... but I'll still
try to answer.
void bar(ref Foo a, c
On Wed, 18 May 2011 02:20:16 -0400, Christopher the Magnificent
wrote:
On 5/17/11 9:07 PM, Michel Fortin wrote:
For
another, it's perfectly in line with how you do it for pointers. Also,
it'll work for 'shared' and 'inout' too (once 'inout' works properly).
Are you saying that objconst and
On Tue, 17 May 2011 21:26:38 -0400, Jesse Phillips
wrote:
Syntax has definitely been a major problem for this feature. Walter's
stance has been that he has tried many times to get the semantics and
syntax to work and has given up. michelf (Sorry don't know his real
name) has created a b
const(deref(Object)) ref obj;
deref(Object) a; //hehe.
Mr. Fortin, thank you for your thorough response. I have just a few
comments.
On 5/17/11 9:07 PM, Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2011-05-17 20:00:55 -0400, Christopher the Magnificent
said:
Now I understand that another syntax has been nominated to do this job
which is the const(Object)ref syntax.
Christopher the Magnificent Wrote:
> Thanks for the background, Jesse Phillips. Do you have any thoughts on
> my proposed objconst/objimmutable syntax, as to whether you think it is
> readable, intuitive, and just whether you like it or don't like it?
I'm going to go withMichel's reply. Th
So how do functions which take such a parameter look like?
void bar(ref Foo a, const(Foo) ref b) { }
or
void bar(ref Foo a, ref const(Foo) b) { }
On 2011-05-17 20:00:55 -0400, Christopher the Magnificent
said:
Now I understand that another syntax has been nominated to do this job
which is the const(Object)ref syntax.
I don't think there has been any official word on that. But many people
have shown support for it.
I dislike that sy
On 5/17/11 7:26 PM, Jesse Phillips wrote:
Christopher the Magnificent Wrote:
Greetings all. First time poster here.
By way of introduction, my name is Christopher. I've been fascinated
with D for a few years now. My main programming language has been
Python, but I have used and studied many
Christopher the Magnificent Wrote:
> Greetings all. First time poster here.
>
> By way of introduction, my name is Christopher. I've been fascinated
> with D for a few years now. My main programming language has been
> Python, but I have used and studied many programming languages to some
>
On 5/17/11 6:17 PM, %u wrote:
This is what Rebindable(T) is for:
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/phobos/std_typecons.html
Thanks for the reference, but to me, rebindable feels like a hack. My
opinion is that D deserves to have such an integral feature as mutable
references to const object
This is what Rebindable(T) is for:
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/phobos/std_typecons.html
Greetings all. First time poster here.
By way of introduction, my name is Christopher. I've been fascinated
with D for a few years now. My main programming language has been
Python, but I have used and studied many programming languages to some
extent. I love to design things, like houses,
15 matches
Mail list logo
