On Wednesday, 19 March 2014 at 00:37:27 UTC, bearophile wrote:
Dan Killebrew:
Seems unintuitive and roundabout. Is this a bug or a feature?
It's a good feature. Generally immutable variables are
initializable from strongly pure functions. If you think about
what immutability and purity mean, it's a good match.
Bye,
bearophile
I meant something else. Why doesn't this work:
immutable int[int] aa = [1:2,3:4];
Seems like it should work to me. After all, this works:
immutable int[] a = [1,2,3,4];
So how is the second 'more constant' than the first? The fact
that the first code block does not compile seems like a bug.
