Hmm, I think it might be sound for mutable values as long as you don't have aliasing.
Practically speaking, you can actually construct such values at runtime, at least in the C++ implementation. -Kenton On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 3:31 PM Ian Denhardt <[email protected]> wrote: > 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/CAJouXQnGd29qN2jw5SadS3%3DMf52ndSjVfM_F3T1xg%3DkdS3XtWA%40mail.gmail.com.
