Leandro Lucarella Wrote: > Walter Bright, el 17 de enero a las 14:45 me escribiste: > > dsimcha wrote: > > >Furthermore, I think that less verbosity encourages good practices. I've > > >gotten > > >into the habit of declaring all my stack variables immutable when writing a > > >function, unless I really need them to be mutable. This makes code a lot > > >easier > > >to understand because, when I look at the function later and try to figure > > >out how > > >it works, I know right off the bat that only a small subset of the > > >variables are > > >ever modified after they're declared. > > > > Andrei introduced me to that style, and I'm starting to use it more > > and more. I like it for the reasons you state. > > Do you remember when people asked for default immutability? I do :) > > To be fair, all I can find in the archives are about default immutability > of function parameters, not local variables, but I'm under the impression > that there was some discussion about making local variables immutable by > default... > > I like the idea of making x := y an alias for immutable x = y (or even > enum x = y). That would make this style much more attractive without > breaking backward compatibility as immutable-by-default would do.
enum is a manifest constant. My vote would be to use pure: pure x = y;
