http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2094





------- Comment #10 from schveiguy@yahoo.com  2008-10-06 18:55 -------
(In reply to comment #6)
> No.  invariantness if f's arg isn't being preserved, so this is a hole that Walter should see.  I've reopened.
> 

I don't see how that matters.  You should be able to call const functions on an invariant object.  Note that the submitted code doesn't actually compile.

As an aside, the scoped const proposal I made would solve the 3 versions of a function requirement.

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1961


-- 

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2094





------- Comment #11 from terranium@yandex.ru  2008-10-07 02:17 -------
we expect to get invariant data from invariant object.


-- 

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2094





------- Comment #12 from schveiguy@yahoo.com  2008-10-07 08:40 -------
(In reply to comment #11)
> we expect to get invariant data from invariant object.

Then define an invariant function.  Const is the equalizer, and it's perfectly acceptable to get invariant data as const.  All const means is that the function will not modify the data, and will not return anything but const references to the data.  It doesn't mean that if the data is invariant, the function magically returns invariant.

I don't see how this bug is valid.


-- 

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2094


terranium@yandex.ru changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|REOPENED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED




------- Comment #13 from terranium@yandex.ru  2008-10-08 11:54 -------
As you insist, I extracted RFE to bug 2400.


--