On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 9:16 PM, Marco Martin <notm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 8:37 PM, David Edmundson
> <da...@davidedmundson.co.uk> wrote:
> >> perhaps you are right, semantically they are two things, not sure what
> >> could be used instead more "proper"(suggestions welcome), will think
> >> more about it.
> >
> >
> > Long term, a virtual hook for immutability?
> but even  adding a new virtual isn't bc as far i know?

Sort of.

Actually adding a virtual is, but the design pattern of a virtual is
do-able in multiple other ways which are binary compatiable.
*if* that's the approach we want (and it's my preferred option) I'll make a
RR that does it.


Reply via email to