On Wednesday, 18 December 2013 at 19:10:07 UTC, Joseph Rushton
Wakeling wrote:
Well, quite :-) I'm not complaining about the issues here, I'm
suggesting that inventing an extra keyword for the cases
discussed in these DIPs is not necessary, because the analogy
and connection with existing use of const/immutable is valuable.
Sorry if I miss something, but I don't understand this analogy.
`const` means that original type can be `mutable` or `immutable`,
so both `mutable` and `immutable` types can be implicitly
converted to the `const` type.
If I understand DIP correctly, unique postblit/constructor
returns `unique` type that can be implicitly converted to the all
of `mutable`, `immutable` and `const` types. So, this behavior is
the opposite of current `const` behavior.
So, where is analogy here?
BTW, it looks like the DIP mix `const` and `unique` semantic.
It's different things, but they are in the same section.
