On Wednesday, 16 October 2013 at 19:06:06 UTC, Daniel Davidson
wrote:
I don't understand how it could be fine. As code grows it would
lead to people not adding useful members like history just
because of the huge repercussions.
struct User {
immutable(Foo) foos;
}
How can I as a user adapt to that change? Before the change
assignment worked equally well among all of Mutable, Immutable,
Const. After that change any `foos ~= createFoo(...)` would
require change. And it is not clear what the change would be.
I think any usage of immutable with types/entities not initially
designed for immutability is an potential mistake and in that
sense it is good that change has broken the user code. Same goes
for operating on immutable entity in generic code as if it is a
value type without actually checking it via introspection.
