On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:52:16AM -0300, Leandro Lucarella wrote: > I think he includes D1 code, which would be harder to port to D2. Makes > sense to me, that's why I think introducing the := operator as an alias to > immutable/const would be a good compromise. It makes extremely easy to use > immutable/const variables while keeping backward compatibility.
Would this be a realistic fear with it? receiver := 1; reciever := 2; // meant to rebind, but spelling error goes unnoticed by compiler If so, bah. Of course, I like it how it is now anyway. > > -- > Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DIEZ "PUNGAS" MENOS > -- Crónica TV -- Adam D. Ruppe http://arsdnet.net
