On Saturday, 16 July 2016 at 04:24:39 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/15/2016 8:25 PM, Andrew Godfrey wrote:
I agree and I like mechanically checkable things. But I also
like compiler
features that mix mechanical checking with the ability to
attest to something
that can't be mechanically checked. Like the @system
attribute. So this line of
reasoning feels incomplete to me. Are we talking here about
immutable/const only
within the context of @safe code? If so, then I missed that
but I get it.
Since casting away immutable/const is allowed in @system code,
yes, I am referring to @safe code here.
Ok. Well, when you and Shachar were arguing, it still doesn't
seem like Shachar was talking about @safe code specifically. I
can't wrap my mind around wanting a "logical const" feature
usable in @safe context; you could already use @system for those
cases.
