digitalmars.D - Vote: No - I would NOT like to see "immutable" in D
- Brad Beveridge (12/12) Jun 30 2005 If you would NOT like to see the concept of immutable data in D (as
- Ben Hinkle (4/16) Jun 30 2005 No*
- David Medlock (3/18) Jun 30 2005 No.
- Andrew Fedoniouk (8/10) Jun 30 2005 complexity....
- David Medlock (16/31) Jul 01 2005 I mean it adds complexity to the compiler, as well as to the programmer
- Mike Capp (8/10) Jul 01 2005 Huh? Deleting a const pointer is perfectly legal in C++. Try it:
- David Medlock (5/24) Jul 01 2005 Oops.
- Andrew Fedoniouk (10/41) Jul 01 2005 The problem is in this "I".
- Charles (3/15) Jun 30 2005 Nah. What David said.
- Mike Parker (1/1) Jun 30 2005 No
- Dejan Lekic (7/7) Jul 01 2005 No
If you would NOT like to see the concept of immutable data in D (as discussed in other threads) - or you think that it would be a waste of Walter's time, please simply reply to this message directly. Please do not discuss anything in this thread. I would like that people issue their vote by replying, hence only reply once. In this way the votes should be very easy to count. If you would like to see D have the concept of immutable data, please vote in the "Vote: Yes" thread. Walter - if I have overstepped the purpose of the newsgroup with these posts, please delete them or make a posting that people not vote. Thanks Brad
Jun 30 2005
"Ben Hinkle" <bhinkle mathworks.com> "Brad Beveridge" <brad somewhere.net> wrote in message news:da1bd0$1iki$1 digitaldaemon.com...If you would NOT like to see the concept of immutable data in D (as discussed in other threads) - or you think that it would be a waste of Walter's time, please simply reply to this message directly. Please do not discuss anything in this thread. I would like that people issue their vote by replying, hence only reply once. In this way the votes should be very easy to count. If you would like to see D have the concept of immutable data, please vote in the "Vote: Yes" thread. Walter - if I have overstepped the purpose of the newsgroup with these posts, please delete them or make a posting that people not vote. Thanks BradNo* (*) I'd like to see a warning for possible COW violations.
Jun 30 2005
No. Complexity added outweighs tiny benefits. Brad Beveridge wrote:If you would NOT like to see the concept of immutable data in D (as discussed in other threads) - or you think that it would be a waste of Walter's time, please simply reply to this message directly. Please do not discuss anything in this thread. I would like that people issue their vote by replying, hence only reply once. In this way the votes should be very easy to count. If you would like to see D have the concept of immutable data, please vote in the "Vote: Yes" thread. Walter - if I have overstepped the purpose of the newsgroup with these posts, please delete them or make a posting that people not vote. Thanks Brad
Jun 30 2005
"David Medlock" <noone nowhere.com> wrote in message news:da1qe5$2719$1 digitaldaemon.com...No. Complexity added outweighs tiny benefits.complexity.... What do you mean by that? Just curious. PS: I don't know any other compileable language in active use which does not have concept of immutable references. In one or another form.
Jun 30 2005
Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:"David Medlock" <noone nowhere.com> wrote in message news:da1qe5$2719$1 digitaldaemon.com...I mean it adds complexity to the compiler, as well as to the programmer and provides very minimal benefit, if any. I have done quite a bit of C++ and I can never point to a situation where I said, 'thank heavens for const'. Const can be casted away so its not a security mechanism. It is value based so its not memory protection. (I can still modify a member of a pointer to const object) Getting const-correctness in C++ is basically to ensure that something isn't delete'd before it should be(or if it can't be). Especially with C++ auto-casting operator overloading (call delete on a object, which assumes you wish to cast to pointer, boom). I believe that garbage collection is superior to this. -DavidMNo. Complexity added outweighs tiny benefits.complexity.... What do you mean by that? Just curious.PS: I don't know any other compileable language in active use which does not have concept of immutable references. In one or another form.Fine but what capability is missing from D which requires us to add it? Just because others have it is not a valid reason, imo.
Jul 01 2005
(Subject changed to prevent misinterpretation as vote) In article <da3ahh$rpv$1 digitaldaemon.com>, David Medlock says...Getting const-correctness in C++ is basically to ensure that something isn't delete'd before it should be(or if it can't be).Huh? Deleting a const pointer is perfectly legal in C++. Try it: int const * const p = new int(123); delete p; Am I misunderstanding your point? cheers Mike
Jul 01 2005
Mike Capp wrote:(Subject changed to prevent misinterpretation as vote) In article <da3ahh$rpv$1 digitaldaemon.com>, David Medlock says...Oops. I was thinking of const return values, which must be deposited into const variables. As you say though, there isn't anything protecting the variable's contents.Getting const-correctness in C++ is basically to ensure that something isn't delete'd before it should be(or if it can't be).Huh? Deleting a const pointer is perfectly legal in C++. Try it: int const * const p = new int(123); delete p; Am I misunderstanding your point? cheers Mike
Jul 01 2005
"David Medlock" <noone nowhere.com> wrote in message news:da3ahh$rpv$1 digitaldaemon.com...Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:The problem is in this "I". If you will coordinate a team of 8 developers spreaded from Asia Far East to Canada West you *will* say 'thank heavens for const' and any other public/private/package/etc attributes. I am personally can live without const and public/private/package/etc in the toy language and project. But in real life and in real projects - beg my pardon."David Medlock" <noone nowhere.com> wrote in message news:da1qe5$2719$1 digitaldaemon.com...I mean it adds complexity to the compiler, as well as to the programmer and provides very minimal benefit, if any. I have done quite a bit of C++ and I can never point to a situation where I said, 'thank heavens for const'.No. Complexity added outweighs tiny benefits.complexity.... What do you mean by that? Just curious.Const can be casted away so its not a security mechanism. It is value based so its not memory protection. (I can still modify a member of a pointer to const object) Getting const-correctness in C++ is basically to ensure that something isn't delete'd before it should be(or if it can't be). Especially with C++ auto-casting operator overloading (call delete on a object, which assumes you wish to cast to pointer, boom). I believe that garbage collection is superior to this. -DavidMPS: I don't know any other compileable language in active use which does not have concept of immutable references. In one or another form.Fine but what capability is missing from D which requires us to add it? Just because others have it is not a valid reason, imo.
Jul 01 2005
Nah. What David said. "Brad Beveridge" <brad somewhere.net> wrote in message news:da1bd0$1iki$1 digitaldaemon.com...If you would NOT like to see the concept of immutable data in D (as discussed in other threads) - or you think that it would be a waste of Walter's time, please simply reply to this message directly. Please do not discuss anything in this thread. I would like that people issue their vote by replying, hence only reply once. In this way the votes should be very easy to count. If you would like to see D have the concept of immutable data, please vote in the "Vote: Yes" thread. Walter - if I have overstepped the purpose of the newsgroup with these posts, please delete them or make a posting that people not vote. Thanks Brad
Jun 30 2005
No - That is my vote I guess... -- ........... Dejan Lekic http://dejan.lekic.org
Jul 01 2005