On Tuesday, 16 February 2016 at 10:31:05 UTC, Guillaume Piolat
wrote:
On Tuesday, 16 February 2016 at 01:04:44 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
2. supports single assignment style of programming, even if
the data is
otherwise mutable
Like 'final'? We did get rid of that...
Maybe we should resurrect it.
I'm trying to say it politely.
D2 const story is more complicated than its competitors.
Both D1 "final" and C++ const always felt more useful and
practical to me that the whole D2 immutable/const/inout thing.
The current scheme seems to have marginal value in practice,
lots of complexity, and is harder to use well (Unqual, inout)
etc. Constructors can break it. I don't know why we should be
that happy about our constness, maybe someone can explain.
+1
It's weird because usually D prefers the practical solution over
the ivory tower one. Nearly every time I end up using immutable
or const for anything beyond say, a trivial function parameter, I
always end up removing it.
My C++ code is often far, far more 'const correct' than my D code.
