-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Pelle Månsson wrote: > On 03/05/2010 07:50 PM, bearophile wrote: >> div0: >>> putting it in Foo simply puts it in a namespace.< >> >> So my (wrong) idea of immutable applied to a struct was that every >> thing in such namespace becomes immutable (I think this is a bit more >> intuitive). >> >> What do you think of modifying D2 so in a situation like the one I've >> shown even static arguments become const/immutable? Can this cause >> troubles to other things? >> >> Thank you to you and Lars T. Kyllingstad for the answers. >> >> Bye, >> bearophile > > Immutability (somewhat) guarantees the value will never ever change. The > static attribute could be changed by a non-immutable instance, and can > therefore not be immutable. It could be const for the immutable > instance, but I don't see the gains from it. > > I do, however, see the gains from not being able to access the static > members through an instance.
Yeah, I *never* access static vars through an instance, I always use the class name. Somebody want to post in the main group? Might be worth a bigger discussion; perhaps somebody can provide a good use case for access through an instance we're not seeing. - -- My enormous talent is exceeded only by my outrageous laziness. http://www.ssTk.co.uk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iD8DBQFLkWUuT9LetA9XoXwRAjTIAJ9kwfo1mKj4J7ghW+SoEYqMBDu/pACfaJyf YAfV9JMHUAUfsFWw3e5pTSg= =/Sfv -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
