If you are working with raw pointers, you need a way to express read only memory.

Because the CPU does have it, and if you tried to write to it, bye bye process.

On Monday, 24 January 2022 at 10:13:02 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
> If you are working with raw pointers, you need a way to express read only memory.
>
> Because the CPU does have it, and if you tried to write to it, bye bye process.

We would try to avoid working with pointers directly in read-only memory but in any case, I still think that the programmer should know what they are doing.

The problem you described is why most language use a "string" type that is immutable (in case you point to a string literal) but they also have a way to allow you to modify a "string" type in case you have allocated memory. So it's always up to you.

So that's how I see it and I can't see it going wrong. I mean, you will properly read documentation and learn the language right? Well that was sarcastic... no one properly reads documentation these days which is the reason why programmers do all these stuff bringing all the downsides along. I think we should not reward people that don't want to properly learn the language.

At the same time I understand that a lot of languages don't have a proper tutorial (book, say it however you want) to teach people about the language. Some don't even have a full language/library reference so even advanced programmer that want to dig cannot learn the language. So they can't blame people for not knowing the language in the end but this is the language creators fault to begin with and I don't plan on doing that. I will make sure that people can have learning the language.

On Monday, 24 January 2022 at 10:23:14 UTC, rempas wrote:
> The problem you described is why most language use a "string" type that is immutable (in case you point to a string literal) but they also have a way to allow you to modify a "string" type in case you have allocated memory. So it's always up to you.
>
You need const for functions that need to be able to take a mutable or immutable variable as parameter. And as you don't know which it is, you have to either propagate the constness or make a mutable copy if you want to call a function (depending if the called function has its parameter declared const or not). So better to declare const wherever that is possible, to _avoid_ making useless copies.
I would NEVER EVER declare a variable const. It's always either mutable or immutable. I would go as far as forbidding to declare variables const, it's just confusing and useless. const is only for parameters.

On Monday, 24 January 2022 at 10:49:36 UTC, Dom DiSc wrote:
> You need const for functions that need to be able to take a mutable or immutable variable as parameter. And as you don't know which it is, you have to either propagate the constness or make a mutable copy if you want to call a function (depending if the called function has its parameter declared const or not). So better to declare const wherever that is possible, to _avoid_ making useless copies.
> I would NEVER EVER declare a variable const. It's always either mutable or immutable. I would go as far as forbidding to declare variables const, it's just confusing and useless. const is only for parameters.

That's what I'm saying. If there were no "const" and it was up to the programmer to decide what to do, we wouldn't had to worry about all that. Is you string pointing to a string literal? Then don't use the "add" function to add more data to it! Or maybe have a member in the "string type" that will check if the string points to a string literal and in this case, allocate memory (for both the old and the new value), copy the old value and then add the new value! This is just so simple and easy for both the creators of the language and the users

My point is if there is a true reason to implement "const" itself other than just protecting programmers that haven't read the documentation and are trying to modify a string literal? Any.. "practical" reason so to say.