Le 11/03/2012 23:12, Walter Bright a écrit :
On 3/11/2012 2:51 PM, bearophile wrote:
And sometimes, a name change can be a huge win - the
invariant=>immutable
one is an example. But I think that's an exceptional case, not a rule.
I was among the ones that have asked for that name change. But
"immutable" is
a quite long word. Now I think the "val" used by Scala is better, it uses
less space for something I use often enough. "imm" is another option,
but it
looks less nice :-)
The reason we went with "immutable" is for any other name, I'd be
constantly explaining:
"xyzzy" means immutable
And I did just that for "invariant". Over and over and over. People
immediately get what "immutable" means, like for no other name. So
consider "immutable" a labor saving device for me.
We have the same phenomena with dur and return type type qualifier (ie:
why does const int* fun() isn't compiling ? Because const is qualifying
the function, not the return type).
Both are recurring questions and so should be as important as immutable.
But both are major breaking change.
