5 ms·
I believe the standard counterargument goes: - either it's transitive, in which case your type system is very much more complicated - or it isn't, in which ca
by JonChesterfield 1y ago
I believe the standard counterargument goes:
- either it's transitive, in which case your type system is very much more complicated
- or it isn't, in which case it's a near useless liability
Naturally C++ runs with the latter, with bonus extra typing for all the overloads it induces.
- maleldil 1y agoHow isn't it transitive in C++? If the variable/reference is const, you can't modify fields, and you can only call const methods. What else do you need?