On 06/18/2012 06:30 PM, Mehrdad wrote:
On Monday, 18 June 2012 at 16:23:39 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
I agree. Some of the keywords are poorly chosen, but this does not
have any actual _practical_ implications for coding. Changing them,
however, does.
Not sure if this was intended to be referring to my post or not, but
just to clarify:
It was not. ;)
The real problem is _not_ the fact that there is a technical issue with
const/pure/immutable/whatever.
Like you said, that might not have any practical consequences.
The problem is that when the compiler _uses_ const/pure/immutable to
make decisions regarding optimizations.
It is important that the type system is sound.
When that's the case, then IMHO they **MUST** be foolproof, no matter
how rare/common they are (assuming no casts and such, to subvert the
system).
This must be the case even if the compiler does not optimize.
Otherwise the compiler generates wrong binaries for correct code.
Then the compiler is wrong.
