http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7312
Don <clugd...@yahoo.com.au> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |clugd...@yahoo.com.au --- Comment #3 from Don <clugd...@yahoo.com.au> 2012-06-27 00:06:13 PDT --- It is currently possible to declare 'const int' variables even though they are identical to 'immutable int' ones. This is similar. And consider: const[] foo(S y) pure { ... } With this proposal, that's OK for struct S, as long as the struct has a pointer. But if S has no pointers, the return value needs to be immutable. That's just annoying. This proposal doesn't add any value. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------