If you would NOT like to see the concept of immutable data in D (as discussed in other threads) - or you think that it would be a waste of Walter's time, please simply reply to this message directly.  Please do not discuss anything in this thread.  I would like that people issue their vote by replying, hence only reply once.
In this way the votes should be very easy to count.

If you would like to see D have the concept of immutable data, please vote in the "Vote: Yes" thread.

Walter - if I have overstepped the purpose of the newsgroup with these posts, please delete them or make a posting that people not vote.

Thanks
Brad

"Brad Beveridge" <brad@somewhere.net> wrote in message news:da1bd0$1iki$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> If you would NOT like to see the concept of immutable data in D (as
> discussed in other threads) - or you think that it would be a waste of
> Walter's time, please simply reply to this message directly.  Please do
> not discuss anything in this thread.  I would like that people issue their
> vote by replying, hence only reply once.
> In this way the votes should be very easy to count.
>
> If you would like to see D have the concept of immutable data, please vote in the "Vote: Yes" thread.
>
> Walter - if I have overstepped the purpose of the newsgroup with these posts, please delete them or make a posting that people not vote.
>
> Thanks
> Brad

No*

(*) I'd like to see a warning for possible COW violations.

No.

Complexity added outweighs tiny benefits.

Brad Beveridge wrote:
> If you would NOT like to see the concept of immutable data in D (as discussed in other threads) - or you think that it would be a waste of Walter's time, please simply reply to this message directly.  Please do not discuss anything in this thread.  I would like that people issue their vote by replying, hence only reply once.
> In this way the votes should be very easy to count.
> 
> If you would like to see D have the concept of immutable data, please vote in the "Vote: Yes" thread.
> 
> Walter - if I have overstepped the purpose of the newsgroup with these posts, please delete them or make a posting that people not vote.
> 
> Thanks
> Brad

Nah.  What David said.

"Brad Beveridge" <brad@somewhere.net> wrote in message news:da1bd0$1iki$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> If you would NOT like to see the concept of immutable data in D (as
> discussed in other threads) - or you think that it would be a waste of
> Walter's time, please simply reply to this message directly.  Please do
> not discuss anything in this thread.  I would like that people issue
> their vote by replying, hence only reply once.
> In this way the votes should be very easy to count.
>
> If you would like to see D have the concept of immutable data, please vote in the "Vote: Yes" thread.
>
> Walter - if I have overstepped the purpose of the newsgroup with these posts, please delete them or make a posting that people not vote.
>
> Thanks
> Brad

No

"David Medlock" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:da1qe5$2719$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> No.
>
> Complexity added outweighs tiny benefits.

complexity....
What do you mean by that?
Just curious.

PS: I don't know any other compileable language
in active use which does not have concept
of immutable references. In one or another form.

Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
> "David Medlock" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:da1qe5$2719$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> 
>>No.
>>
>>Complexity added outweighs tiny benefits.
> 
> 
> complexity....
> What do you mean by that?
> Just curious.
> 
I mean it adds complexity to the compiler, as well as to the programmer and provides very minimal benefit, if any.

I have done quite a bit of C++ and I can never point to a situation where I said, 'thank heavens for const'.

Const can be casted away so its not a security mechanism.

It is value based so its not memory protection. (I can still modify a member of a pointer to const object)

Getting const-correctness in C++ is basically to ensure that something isn't delete'd before it should be(or if it can't be).  Especially with C++ auto-casting operator overloading (call delete on a object, which assumes you wish to cast to pointer, boom).

I believe that garbage collection is superior to this.

-DavidM

> PS: I don't know any other compileable language
> in active use which does not have concept
> of immutable references. In one or another form.

Fine but what capability is missing from D which requires us to add it?
Just because others have it is not a valid reason, imo.

(Subject changed to prevent misinterpretation as vote)

In article <da3ahh$rpv$1@digitaldaemon.com>, David Medlock says...
>
>Getting const-correctness in C++ is basically to ensure that something isn't delete'd before it should be(or if it can't be).

Huh? Deleting a const pointer is perfectly legal in C++. Try it:

int const * const p = new int(123);
delete p;

Am I misunderstanding your point?

cheers
Mike

Mike Capp wrote:

> (Subject changed to prevent misinterpretation as vote)
> 
> In article <da3ahh$rpv$1@digitaldaemon.com>, David Medlock says...
> 
>>Getting const-correctness in C++ is basically to ensure that something isn't delete'd before it should be(or if it can't be). 
> 
> 
> Huh? Deleting a const pointer is perfectly legal in C++. Try it:
> 
> int const * const p = new int(123);
> delete p;
> 
> Am I misunderstanding your point?
> 
> cheers
> Mike
> 
> 

Oops.

I was thinking of const return values, which must be deposited into const variables.  As you say though, there isn't anything protecting the variable's contents.

"David Medlock" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:da3ahh$rpv$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
>> "David Medlock" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:da1qe5$2719$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>>
>>>No.
>>>
>>>Complexity added outweighs tiny benefits.
>>
>>
>> complexity....
>> What do you mean by that?
>> Just curious.
>>
> I mean it adds complexity to the compiler, as well as to the programmer and provides very minimal benefit, if any.
>
> I have done quite a bit of C++ and I can never point to a situation where I said, 'thank heavens for const'.

The problem is in this "I".

If you will coordinate a team of 8 developers spreaded
from Asia Far East to Canada West you *will* say
'thank heavens for const' and any other public/private/package/etc
attributes.

I am personally can live without const and public/private/package/etc
in the toy language and project.
But in real life and in real projects - beg my pardon.



>
> Const can be casted away so its not a security mechanism.
>
> It is value based so its not memory protection. (I can still modify a member of a pointer to const object)
>
> Getting const-correctness in C++ is basically to ensure that something isn't delete'd before it should be(or if it can't be).  Especially with C++ auto-casting operator overloading (call delete on a object, which assumes you wish to cast to pointer, boom).
>
> I believe that garbage collection is superior to this.
>
> -DavidM
>
> > PS: I don't know any other compileable language
> > in active use which does not have concept
> > of immutable references. In one or another form.
>
> Fine but what capability is missing from D which requires us to add it? Just because others have it is not a valid reason, imo.