http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3449
--- Comment #15 from Stewart Gordon <s...@iname.com> 2012-07-25 14:55:34 PDT --- (In reply to comment #14) > +1 from me. Implicit static and (worse) implicit enum are bad ideas, and the > worst part is that whether it's static or not depends on whether there is an > initializer or not. I entirely agree. > (admittedly I am left wondering what the difference is > between "const int" and "immutable int", is it relevant?) There isn't any real difference on the surface. But when you take the address of one, you get quite different types. > However, as a compromise, perhaps if the user writes "const int x = 7;" the > compiler could warn: "warning: since x is a constant, it should be declared > with static or enum to avoid wasting memory." How would the programmer suppress this warning because it's deliberate? Maybe we need a new attribute for this. This would also enable an immutable value to be part of a struct's layout without breaking existing code. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------