Don't forget about S.init - const element initializer changes it and makes sense in that way. So you may have both cont element with initializer and constructor that changes it later. It is completely legitimate D code, despite the fact I can't imagine any use case for it now.
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Don Clugston <[email protected]> wrote: > >> You kind of propose that "const int" to be a completely different type >> depending on initialiser. It is horrible. > > > I have not said that. I've asserted that const member with an initializer, > when inside a struct, is ALWAYS a bug. > I agree that we need to get rid of the existing behaviour. But I argue it > should simply be an error, rather than replacing it with a misfeature. > > _______________________________________________ > dmd-beta mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta _______________________________________________ dmd-beta mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta
