• Craig Black (17/17) Apr 02 2008 Unless I misunderstand something this shouldn't compile. But it compile...
• Walter Bright (1/1) Apr 02 2008 You're right, it shouldn't compile.
• Walter Bright (4/5) Apr 03 2008 That should work, but at the moment:
• Extrawurst (2/7) Apr 03 2008 Why do we need the suffix "const" anyway ? Isnt unambiguity a virtue ?
• Walter Bright (2/3) Apr 03 2008 Some people prefer it.
• Extrawurst (3/6) Apr 03 2008 Some people seem to prefer untransitive const too ;)
• Derek Parnell (7/11) Apr 03 2008 Does that principal also apply to 'alias' or 'maifest' or 'define' inste...
• Dave (23/27) Apr 05 2008 Since there has, understandably, been some confusion about what const re...

"Craig Black" <craigblack2 cox.net> writes:

Unless I misunderstand something this shouldn't compile.  But it compiles 
fine in DMD 2.012.  Is this a bug?

import std.stdio;

class A
{
public:
  int x = 0;
  void setX(int nx) const { x = nx; }
}

void foo(const A a) { a.setX(1); }

int main(char[][] args)
{
  A a = new A;
  foo(a);
  writefln(a.x);
  return 0;
}

Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:

You're right, it shouldn't compile.

Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:

Craig Black wrote:
  void setX(int nx) const { x = nx; }

That should work, but at the moment:

const void setX(int nx) { x = nx; }

does work.

Extrawurst <spam extrawurst.org> writes:

Walter Bright schrieb:
 Craig Black wrote:
  void setX(int nx) const { x = nx; }

 That should work, but at the moment:

 const void setX(int nx) { x = nx; }

 does work.

Why do we need the suffix "const" anyway ? Isnt unambiguity a virtue ?

Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:

Extrawurst wrote:
 Why do we need the suffix "const" anyway ? Isnt unambiguity a virtue ?

Some people prefer it.

Extrawurst <spam extrawurst.org> writes:

Walter Bright schrieb:
 Extrawurst wrote:
 Why do we need the suffix "const" anyway ? Isnt unambiguity a virtue ?

 Some people prefer it.

Some people seem to prefer untransitive const too ;)
(i am not one of those, to pe clear on that)

Derek Parnell <derek psych.ward> writes:

On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 11:33:10 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:

 Extrawurst wrote:
 Why do we need the suffix "const" anyway ? Isnt unambiguity a virtue ?

 
 Some people prefer it.

Does that principal also apply to 'alias' or 'maifest' or 'define' instead
of enum for manifest constants?


-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
skype: derek.j.parnell

"Dave" <Dave_member pathlink.com> writes:

"Walter Bright" <newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:ft380r$13vn$1 digitalmars.com...
 Extrawurst wrote:
 Why do we need the suffix "const" anyway ? Isnt unambiguity a virtue ?

 Some people prefer it.

 const void setX(int nx) { x = nx; }

Since there has, understandably, been some confusion about what const refers 
to with the prefixed form, why don't we get rid of the prefixed form 
altogether for 2.0?

You could still allow:

class C
{
const
{
  int[] foo() { }         // int[] foo() const { }
  double[] bar() { }  // double[] bar() const { }
}
}

because you have to do const(int[]) foo() to specify it for the return type 
anyhow, which is consistent between member and non-member functions.

I doubt at this point it would break all that much code and the deprecated 
switch could serve in the interim.

I really think this change would be worth it considering all of the 
confusion the prefix form will cause down the road, especially for C++ 
users.

Thanks,

- Dave