Am Thu, 07 Nov 2013 15:27:57 +0100 schrieb "Daniel Davidson" <[email protected]>:
> Regarding what is idiomatic D, isn't `immutable x = rnd.next % > levelSize;` pedantic. > Why not just go with `const x = rnd.next % levelSize;` Yes it is pedantic and I don't mind if anyone objects. :) > Any time the type is a fundamental type with no aliasing there is > no sharing so the differentiation of immutable vs const is > unnecessary. Might as well go with const. immutable says I or > no-one else will change the value. But since no-one else can > change the value it seems overkill, no? > > Thanks > Dan Data is either mutable or immutable. The way I see it, const is just a bridge to combine both worlds when the context allows for both mutable and immutable data. Immutable by default would have made the code look less pedantic, but I could imagine there are big downsides to that as well. -- Marco
