On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 01:38:17 -0400, Mehrdad <[email protected]> wrote:
== Quote from Steven Schveighoffer ([email protected])'s article
On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 01:09:57 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer
<[email protected]> wrote:
> No. final is not a type constructor, so it does not get carried
around
> with the type.
>
> final int i;
>
> assert(typeof(i) == int); // after the declaration, the storage
class is
> gone from the type!
>
> int * ip = &i;
Note, you might be able to forbid this line, but I don't think
this works
well.
-Steve
I completely realize that final is not a type constructor (I don't
want it to be one either), but I'm failing to what that has to do
with anything.
How does that fact affect my previous answer?
What is the type of s.o? Hint, it can't be final, because final isn't
part of the type.
What is the type of &s.o?
If the type of s.o is T (let's say) and the type of &s.o is not T*, then I
think we have a problem.
I just think it doesn't work. Maybe you can figure out a way it can, but
I don't think it can be done without severe confusing semantics.
-Steve
