"deadalnix" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > Le 11/03/2012 23:12, Walter Bright a écrit : >> >> 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.
I wouldn't call dur->duration a *major* breaking change. First of all, you get a clear compile-time error, not silently changed semantics. Secondly, it's a simple search/replace: s/dur!/duration!/ (Not that I normally do search/replaces *completely* blind and unattended, but it's still trivial.)
