On Friday, 12 December 2014 at 12:34:40 UTC, Manu via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On 12 December 2014 at 22:18, via Digitalmars-d
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Friday, 12 December 2014 at 08:42:22 UTC, Manu via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
How can a member be marked scope? Apparently it's a storage
class, not
a type constructor... we can only attribute storage classes to
function args/results(?).
I was talking about my proposal here, where it's a type
modifier, not a
storage class.
Oh okay. Is that still on the table?
Dunno, maybe? DIP69 doesn't look very well-received at the
moment...
deadalnix also brought up the problem of transitivity. This,
too, would
simply go away if it's a type modifier.
Just for clarity, does type modifier mean the same thing as
type constructor?
Yes. "Type modifier" = const, shared, immutable, etc.; "type
constructor" = the syntactical construct by which a type is
constructed/modified. Andrei suggested this differentiation some
time ago (sorry, don't have a reference at hand).
