http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4734
Stephan Dilly <s...@extrawurst.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |s...@extrawurst.org --- Comment #3 from Stephan Dilly <s...@extrawurst.org> 2010-08-26 15:14:48 PDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > You are absolutely right. I forgot about the ability to make functions > themselves const/immutable. It would really help if that right-side rule was > in > place, because all this will do right now is cause confusion (unless we get a > nicer error message, in which case we can keep the flexibility I think..). > > So maybe I should change this to an enhancement request for a better error > message. I disagree, just like any other storage class the current annotating enables the user to group blocks of methods with equivalent storage classes like this: class Foo{ static{ void foo(); } const{ const(ConstReturnVal) bar(); } } it is nothing but consistent and should stay as it is. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------