On Wednesday, 16 October 2013 at 17:58:41 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Wednesday, 16 October 2013 at 17:50:48 UTC, Daniel Davidson
wrote:
On Wednesday, 16 October 2013 at 17:16:39 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
It works as it should. Make a mutable copy of t2 and pass it.
Or make foo() accept const. I can't imagine a single
legitimate use case for destroying type system in a way you
want.
How do you propose to make a mutable copy *generically*?
Recursively going through the levels of indirection via static
introspection and allocating memory for new mutable
counter-parts as it goes. Maybe it should belong to Phobos, no
idea right now, will know once I ever find the need for it.
I agree with the sentiment. But as it stands I think a copy
should not be necessary. I could make a local mutable R, pass it
to createRFromT to get it initialized and then copy it back
somehow to the member variable r. That to me is silly. The copy
should not be required.
