Aaron mused:
> > Then maybe we shouldn't call it 'is const'? Or maybe another tag is > > needed in addition, like 'is unbindable' for the latter case. > > Yes, I see the wisdom of not using "const" here, since it does carry > SO MUCH baggage. "final" has Java baggage. "only", "stable", > "ro" or "firm" might be the way to go. "unbindable" is a bit of a > mouthfull... Perhaps "fixed" or "eternal" would be good. I'm really not sure it's a big problem. I suspect that the majority of people won't ever rebind initialized constants, so -- to them -- C<const> *will* behave as they expect. > Speaking of killing the old one, I assume that: > > $a = 1; > $b = 2; > $c := $a; > $a := $b; > > Will leave: > > $c == 1 && $a == 2 > > True? Yes. And $b == 2 as well, of course. Damian
