On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 11:50:57PM +0100, Timon Gehr wrote: > On 01/25/2012 02:29 AM, H. S. Teoh wrote: [...] > >But since Walter doesn't like the idea of restricting the syntax to 'int > >y() const', then what about making it mandatory to write: > > > > const(int) x; > > > >instead of: > > > > const int x; > > > >? > > You essentially propose to remove the const/immutable/shared/inout > storage classes for variables. It would break almost every D program > and I don't see many benefits. [...] > It is very simple. What may be confusing you is that > const/immutable/shared/inout are both type constructors and storage > classes. [...]
Ah, I see. This is very helpful. So what's the difference between a const int type, and an int variable with const storage class? I think this is the key issue. The syntax makes this distinction non-obvious, IMHO, which is very confusing. This ambiguity also shows up in function definitions (allowing storage classes to appear left or right of the function name/parameters), which we discussed earlier. From what I can tell, Walter doesn't want to change this, but I have to say that this is one part of D I find unnecessarily confusing. T -- Do not reason with the unreasonable; you lose by definition.
