Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:

> "Janice Caron" wrote
> > On 12/31/07, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> >> How about doing an in-place sort of an array of const classes?
> >>
> >> const(C)[] myarray;
> >
> > How would you even /create/ such a thing in the first place? How could you populate it?
> 
> Obviously if it's so difficult to imagine such a concept, then something is broken.  I recall from Walter's original post that if you want an array of const class references, you build it by appending them.  I think that strategy sucks.
> 
> >
> > In any case, the obvious solution is to just do things a different way. There are plenty of alternative strategies. The most obvious one which springs to my mind is just to use pointers:
> >
> >    const(C)*[] myarray;
> 
> Remember that a const(C)* is a pointer to a reference, so now you need something to hold the memory that is the reference itself.  You can't just do myarray[x] = new C.  So you have to do 2 allocations, one to allocate the const class, and one to allocate the const reference to the class, which means your heap is holding an extra pointer when there is no need, just so the language spec can be 'simpler'.  I think to fill this array, it's going to be just as hard as filling the const(C)[] array.
> 
> >
> >> // swap two items i and j
> >> auto tmp = myarray[i];
> >> myarray[i] = myarray[j]; // error
> >> myarray[j] = tmp; // error
> >
> > ...and that would work now.
> 
> Fair enough, but the solution still fails because I have to use double the space and extra processing, and creating such an array is too complicated.
> 
> >
> >
> >> This
> >> feature of being able to swap two references to const data is a very
> >> common
> >> algorithmic requirement.
> >
> > Neither C nor C++ lets you do this. C doesn't even /have/ references. C++ has references, but they are always const. For both of these languages, you have to use pointers if you want to do this sort of thing. It's not a big deal. We can live without it.
> 
> D references ARE pointers.  The problem is that with classes, I can't change the constness of the class without changing the constness of the pointer (reference).  With C++ I can.  With D structs I can.  Tell me, why is it acceptable to have tail const for struct references, but not for class references?  There is no technical reason this can't exist.  It's not required for Walter's const dream to have class references always have the same constness as the referenced class itself.  It's not required to have tail-const for structs (not struct references) if you have tail-const for class references.  My belief is that he just can't find the right way to express this idea, and so instead of trying to work through it, he's given up.  I think he inexplicably can't unlink tail const for structs from tail-const for references (pointers).  In his mind, it's both or none, which both suck.  The right answer is: tail-const for references and pointers, no tail-const for structs.
> 
> And no, *we* can't live without it.  Maybe you can, but I can't.

Whether the language caters to every possible convenience need is irrelevant granted you can eventually accomplish any given program.  Const-ness is a convenience for the compiler, not a requirement to accomplish *any* given program.

In my opinion it is quite acceptable that classes are treated differently in this respect, because classes are treated differently in many other parts of D already.  They're simply inherently, internally different in enough ways that to make it seemless would be to over-abstract the language.

There are many many many cases of classes having distinct advantages or disadvantages to structs.  Let this be another.

Regards,
Dan

"Dan" wrote
> Whether the language caters to every possible convenience need is irrelevant granted you can eventually accomplish any given program. Const-ness is a convenience for the compiler, not a requirement to accomplish *any* given program.
>

Unfortunately, it is a requirement if you intend to use someone's library which uses const (such as Phobos).

> In my opinion it is quite acceptable that classes are treated differently in this respect, because classes are treated differently in many other parts of D already.  They're simply inherently, internally different in enough ways that to make it seemless would be to over-abstract the language.

I don't mind classes being treated different than structs.  I believe the way classes and structs differ is fine.  My issue is with class references.

>
> There are many many many cases of classes having distinct advantages or disadvantages to structs.  Let this be another.

There is no good reason anyone has ever given as to why we cannot have mutable class references to const class data.  Nobody.  In fact, Walter had originally had this implemented, but I think the way he did it made other things confusing.  I believe there is a way to do it that is not confusing, and allows for everyone to have what they want.  So with no good reason why it cannot be done, and since Walter has already done it before, why not allow it?  The workarounds given are hacks at best.

-Steve