[Issue 1961] Allow "scoped const" contracts

2015-06-08 Thread via Digitalmars-d-bugs
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1961 Andrei Alexandrescu changed: What|Removed |Added Version|2.013 |D2 --

[Issue 1961] Allow "scoped const" contracts

2010-05-18 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1961 Steven Schveighoffer changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Issue 1961] Allow "scoped const" contracts

2010-02-18 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1961 Steven Schveighoffer changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||3748 --- Comment #18 from Steve

[Issue 1961] Allow "scoped const" contracts

2008-12-07 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1961 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Comment

[Issue 1961] Allow "scoped const" contracts

2008-12-02 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1961 --- Comment #16 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-02 09:57 --- You are right I hadn't fully re-read the your initial posting, it was a long time ago ;) --

[Issue 1961] Allow "scoped const" contracts

2008-12-02 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1961 --- Comment #15 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-02 09:07 --- (In reply to comment #12) > This code duplication bug requires to write every rom method in three flavors > to provide good rom interface. For me, this entirely prevents use

[Issue 1961] Allow "scoped const" contracts

2008-12-02 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1961 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC|[EMAIL PROTECTED] | --- Comment #14 from [EMAIL P

[Issue 1961] Allow "scoped const" contracts

2008-12-02 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1961 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Comment

[Issue 1961] Allow "scoped const" contracts

2008-12-02 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1961 --- Comment #12 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-02 04:19 --- > Walter Bright wrote: > > For me, the question is is solving these issues a large enough problem > > that justifies adding a rather confusing new variation on const? > Thi