• Kagamin <spam here.lot> Nov 29 2010
• Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> Nov 29 2010
• "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> Nov 29 2010

Kagamin <spam here.lot> writes:

Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:

 lack of tail-const/immutable for classes.
 
 And no, Rebindable doesn't cut it.


As I understand, it's primarily issue for collections?

Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:

On Monday, November 29, 2010 12:48:45 Kagamin wrote:
 Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
 lack of tail-const/immutable for classes.
 
 And no, Rebindable doesn't cut it.


 As I understand, it's primarily issue for collections?


The lack of tail-const is a particularly big problem for handling ranges, I 
believe. It means that certain things will work with arrays which won't work 
with user-defined ranges.

- Jonathan M Davis

"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:

On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 15:53:51 -0500, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com>  
wrote:

 On Monday, November 29, 2010 12:48:45 Kagamin wrote:
 Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
 lack of tail-const/immutable for classes.

 And no, Rebindable doesn't cut it.


 As I understand, it's primarily issue for collections?


 The lack of tail-const is a particularly big problem for handling  
 ranges, I
 believe. It means that certain things will work with arrays which won't  
 work
 with user-defined ranges.


Yes, this applies to non-classes as well, thanks for pointing that out.

But no tail-const for classes is a glaring mistake to anyone learning the  
language.  Tail-const for ranges is a bit more obscure.

-Steve