On 18/12/13 21:16, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 12/18/2013 08:09 PM, 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.
There is no such analogy or connection.
See my earlier response to Ilya. If I've interpreted things wrongly, do let me
know, but I don't see how you can say there is not a useful overlap between the
meaning placed on these qualifiers in this DIP and the meaning placed on them in
other circumstances in the language.
