Ryan Joseph schrieb am Mo., 18. März 2019,
00:50:
> I just realized that typed constants exist and may need to be supported as
> constants for generics but I’ve never used them myself (not sure when they
> were introduced).
>
> First test gives an error so it makes me wonder if they’re buggy and
I've actually had this problem myself - sometimes it's quite critical as
well because you might want things like
const
Pi: Double = 3.14159265359;
HalfPi: Double = Pi / 2; TwoPi: Double = 2 * Pi;
Will return the illegal expression error as well, even if Pi is fully
declared elsewhere,
I just realized that typed constants exist and may need to be supported as
constants for generics but I’ve never used them myself (not sure when they were
introduced).
First test gives an error so it makes me wonder if they’re buggy and should be
allowed for generics. Should they?
const
Given I want to be conservative with pure functions so it's
near-impossible to write something that breaks the compiler or cause
unexpected behaviour in the compiled binary, I'll treat the accessing of
such a constant as "impure" for reasons of safety. My work-in-progress
already detects
In our previous episode, J. Gareth Moreton said:
> For a more fundamental question... why are typed and untyped constants
> treated differently?
Turbo Pascal allowed to write them, depending on a switch. $J.
Delphi adds {$writeableconst on} iirc.
But even when this is off, you can't be sure
So I have a question about constants.
While programming pure functions, I noticed that typed and untyped
constants are treated differently. Something like "const Pi = 3.14159",
even if declared outside of the current function, is propagated directly in
expressions - the node construction shows
