On 9 August 2013 03:09, Jonathan S. Shapiro <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm not sure whether this last fragment is meant to be C or BitC. Since you > use readonly, I'm assuming BitC, and that leads me to say there are five > problems here.
It was my idea of the concepts from your original email thrown into C with bodged syntax for parametrics. I was trying to close the C->BitC->C loop to demonstrate my confusion about your C->BitC translation. I don't want us to be sidetracked with my frankentax any further however I think we're about to see eye to eye so one more thing... > But your main point - and the fifth issue in your version - is the > positioning of "readonly". In the C version: > > T * const car; > > the const means that the pointer living in the car cell cannot be mutated. > It does NOT mean that T is itself an immutable thing. We were defining an immutable list of mutable objects so that's exactly what we want. _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
