• =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Tomek_Sowi=f1ski?= (25/25) Nov 19 2009 const on a function forbids changing members:
• div0 (15/47) Nov 19 2009 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
• Stewart Gordon (3/6) Nov 20 2009 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3534
• =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Tomek_Sowi=f1ski?= (2/9) Nov 20 2009 Thanks!

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Tomek_Sowi=f1ski?= <tomeksowi.getridof this.gmail.and.com.that> writes:

const on a function forbids changing members:

class Wrong {
    int a;
    void foo() const {
        a = 4;
    }
}

The above rightly doesn't compile. But with a little twist...

class A {
    int a;
    void foo(ref int i) const {
        i = 4;
    }
    void foo() const {
        foo(a);
    }
}

void main() {
    auto a = new A;
    a.foo;
    assert(a.a == 4);
}

... I bypass the const promise on a function (two of them in fact). No casting,
no evil stuff.

Is this a compiler bug or feature?

Tomek

div0 <div0 users.sourceforge.net> writes:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Tomek Sowiñski wrote:
 const on a function forbids changing members:
 
 class Wrong {
     int a;
     void foo() const {
         a = 4;
     }
 }
 
 The above rightly doesn't compile. But with a little twist...
 
 class A {
     int a;
     void foo(ref int i) const {
         i = 4;
     }
     void foo() const {
         foo(a);
     }
 }
 
 void main() {
     auto a = new A;
     a.foo;
     assert(a.a == 4);
 }
 
 ... I bypass the const promise on a function (two of them in fact). No
casting, no evil stuff.
 
 Is this a compiler bug or feature?
 
 Tomek

That's definitely a bug.
Casting away const should always be explicit operation.

- --
My enormous talent is exceeded only by my outrageous laziness.
http://www.ssTk.co.uk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iD8DBQFLBaP+T9LetA9XoXwRAjsWAJ4g8F2vShGWRsiOXiqa2ONBr4YMvACeM+UX
/M2U4uArNNu3Xb6vGgKoIKc=
=+WE+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:

Tomek Sowiñski wrote:
<snip>
 ... I bypass the const promise on a function (two of them in fact). No
casting, no evil stuff.
 
 Is this a compiler bug or feature?

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3534

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Tomek_Sowi=f1ski?= <just ask.me> writes:

Stewart Gordon Wrote:

 Tomek Sowiñski wrote:
 <snip>
 ... I bypass the const promise on a function (two of them in fact). No
casting, no evil stuff.
 
 Is this a compiler bug or feature?

 
 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3534

Thanks!