digitalmars.D - Re: const
Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> writes:
Walter Bright Wrote:Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:You haven't tried it in a public release despite massive backing (in the NG at least).
Jerking people around with yet another non-working const regime would not help. For example, the C++ const regime has massive backing from the C++ community. But it is fundamentally unsound. If you carefully monitor the email traffic of people working on C++0x, you'll see the problems, too. As programming shifts to more and more multiprogramming, and people get more and more fed up with programs that defy static verification, these unfixable problems will cause more and more people to abandon C++. D needs to look to the future, and for that it needs a fundamentally (i.e. mathematically) sound foundation for const.
Yes, sure, but that doesn't change the fact that the keywords chosen in themselves are confusing, and the thing I was referring to. Lars Ivar
Mar 28 2008
Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:Yes, sure, but that doesn't change the fact that the keywords chosen in themselves are confusing, and the thing I was referring to.
I know they are initially confusing - but there aren't any better. For example, some people think "readonly" means one thing, and another group of people think "readonly" intuitively means something quite different. Other computer languages are not helpful because none of them do what D is trying to do with const. And C++ overloads "const" for 3 diverse meanings. At some point, you just have to pick a set of keywords and decide what they mean for D. What matters then is sticking to the defined meanings of those keywords and using them consistently. We're moving into new territory, and so I think we're entitled to come up with some new jargon for it.
Mar 28 2008