http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6253
--- Comment #8 from [email protected] 2012-04-17 13:35:45 PDT --- One more comment: http://forum.dlang.org/thread/[email protected]#post-wnepqlefxamfbhddpaqs:40forum.dlang.org This bug report is based on this idea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_astonishment If I define: Foo[] a; I expect those Foo items to be mutable. If I see: int[Foo] I expect those Foo keys to be mutable. If I see: immutable(Foo)[] a; I expect those Foos to be immutable. If I see: int[immutable Foo] I expect those Foo keys to be immutable. If I see a int[Foo] and I get immutable Foo keys, I am astonished. Not doing what I am saying here will add another special case to D language. Avoiding many special cases is a reasons to choose D over C++. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
