Quoting 'Kenton Varda' via Cap'n Proto (2019-09-16 16:14:59) > Anyway, I guess given that there's no such thing as a constant > capability currently, we don't need to worry about that? And covariance > is correct for all other types? So we could support it?
It's sound for constants, but given that it's not for mutable values (even without caps), my gut is that adding this is probably not a good cost:benefit ratio. It would only enable creating constants that would be impossible to construct dynamically anyway, and it's not clear to me what sort of programming this enables that justifies that. -Ian -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Cap'n Proto" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/capnproto/156867309443.14928.6547354236178460000%40localhost.localdomain.
