www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - const as per popular demand

reply Carlos Santander <csantander619 gmail.com> writes:
First, let me say that I haven't finished reading all those const posts. I
still 
have 129 to go.

What made me remember this was a post by Steven Schveighoffer where he asked 
"what's wrong with mutable?"

Three months ago there was a poll here: 
http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=54361
Mostly everyone agreed to be willing to at least try const by default. If we
all 
are in the trying-stuff bandwagon, why can't we try that and just see what
happens?

I'll go back now to try to catch up. TGIF!

-- 
Carlos Santander Bernal
Sep 14 2007
next sibling parent reply "Janice Caron" <caron800 googlemail.com> writes:
On 9/14/07, Carlos Santander <csantander619 gmail.com> wrote:

 Mostly everyone agreed to be willing to at least try const by default. If we
all
 are in the trying-stuff bandwagon, why can't we try that and just see what
happens?


It's not on offer.
Sep 14 2007
parent reply Regan Heath <regan netmail.co.nz> writes:
Janice Caron wrote:

 On 9/14/07, Carlos Santander <csantander619 gmail.com> wrote:

 Mostly everyone agreed to be willing to at least try const by default. If we
all
 are in the trying-stuff bandwagon, why can't we try that and just see what
happens?


 
 It's not on offer.


Neither is shared, readable, writable :P
Sep 14 2007
parent "Janice Caron" <caron800 googlemail.com> writes:
On 9/14/07, Regan Heath <regan netmail.co.nz> wrote:

 Neither is shared, readable, writable :P


Nice! :-)

Well, I certainly can't argue with that. However, I hope you recall
that Walter said:  "There is no way to specify a (pointer to)(const
pointer to)(mutable int)."

Those keywords you mentioned were at least an attempt to workaround
the restrictions of const transitivity. Whereas, const-by-default,
though a very nice idea, is not likely to help in that regard.
Sep 14 2007
prev sibling parent reply Brad Roberts <braddr puremagic.com> writes:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007, Carlos Santander wrote:


 First, let me say that I haven't finished reading all those const posts. 
 I still have 129 to go.
 
 What made me remember this was a post by Steven Schveighoffer where he asked
 "what's wrong with mutable?"
 
 Three months ago there was a poll here:
 http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=54361
 Mostly everyone agreed to be willing to at least try const by default. If we
 all are in the trying-stuff bandwagon, why can't we try that and just see what
 happens?
 
 I'll go back now to try to catch up. TGIF!
 
 -- 
 Carlos Santander Bernal


The debate about the default state is irrelevant until the meaning of the 
state is actually agreed upon, or atleast an implementation is set that is 
likely to stick around.  In other words, default to what sort of const?

Now, back to the regularly scheduled lack of agreements on what sorts of 
constantness should exist.

Later,
Brad
Sep 14 2007
parent reply Carlos Santander <csantander619 gmail.com> writes:
Brad Roberts escribió:

 On Fri, 14 Sep 2007, Carlos Santander wrote:
 

 First, let me say that I haven't finished reading all those const posts. 
 I still have 129 to go.

 What made me remember this was a post by Steven Schveighoffer where he asked
 "what's wrong with mutable?"

 Three months ago there was a poll here:
 http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=54361
 Mostly everyone agreed to be willing to at least try const by default. If we
 all are in the trying-stuff bandwagon, why can't we try that and just see what
 happens?

 I'll go back now to try to catch up. TGIF!

 -- 
 Carlos Santander Bernal


 
 The debate about the default state is irrelevant until the meaning of the 
 state is actually agreed upon, or atleast an implementation is set that is 
 likely to stick around.  In other words, default to what sort of const?
 


Sigh, guess you're right...


 Now, back to the regularly scheduled lack of agreements on what sorts of 
 constantness should exist.
 
 Later,
 Brad



-- 
Carlos Santander Bernal
Sep 14 2007
parent charles <charlie d.com> writes:
Good try though!



Carlos Santander wrote:

 Brad Roberts escribió:

 On Fri, 14 Sep 2007, Carlos Santander wrote:


 First, let me say that I haven't finished reading all those const 
 posts. I still have 129 to go.

 What made me remember this was a post by Steven Schveighoffer where 
 he asked
 "what's wrong with mutable?"

 Three months ago there was a poll here:
 http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmar
.D&article_id=54361 

 Mostly everyone agreed to be willing to at least try const by 
 default. If we
 all are in the trying-stuff bandwagon, why can't we try that and just 
 see what
 happens?

 I'll go back now to try to catch up. TGIF!

 -- 
 Carlos Santander Bernal


 The debate about the default state is irrelevant until the meaning of 
 the state is actually agreed upon, or atleast an implementation is set 
 that is likely to stick around.  In other words, default to what sort 
 of const?


 
 Sigh, guess you're right...
 

 Now, back to the regularly scheduled lack of agreements on what sorts 
 of constantness should exist.

 Later,
 Brad
Sep 15 2007