Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:

> lack of tail-const/immutable for classes.
> 
> And no, Rebindable doesn't cut it.

As I understand, it's primarily issue for collections?

On Monday, November 29, 2010 12:48:45 Kagamin wrote:
> Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
> > lack of tail-const/immutable for classes.
> > 
> > And no, Rebindable doesn't cut it.
> 
> As I understand, it's primarily issue for collections?

The lack of tail-const is a particularly big problem for handling ranges, I believe. It means that certain things will work with arrays which won't work with user-defined ranges.

- Jonathan M Davis

On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 15:53:51 -0500, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg@gmx.com> wrote:

> On Monday, November 29, 2010 12:48:45 Kagamin wrote:
>> Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
>> > lack of tail-const/immutable for classes.
>> >
>> > And no, Rebindable doesn't cut it.
>>
>> As I understand, it's primarily issue for collections?
>
> The lack of tail-const is a particularly big problem for handling ranges, I
> believe. It means that certain things will work with arrays which won't work
> with user-defined ranges.

Yes, this applies to non-classes as well, thanks for pointing that out.

But no tail-const for classes is a glaring mistake to anyone learning the language.  Tail-const for ranges is a bit more obscure.

-Steve