On Monday, 29 June 2015 at 20:12:12 UTC, Assembly wrote:
I believe it's a design choice, if so, could someone explain
why? is immutable better than C#'s readonly so that the
readonly keyword isn't even needed? for example, I'd like to
declare a member as readonly but I can't do it directly because
immutable create a new type (since it's a type specific,
correct?) isn't really the same thing.
MyClass x = new MyClass();
if I do
auto x = new immutable(MyClass)();
give errors
Why? I think `const` and `immutable` even better than C#'s
`readonly`. Also, are you aware that it's recommended to use
`const` instead of `readonly`?
`new immutable(MyClass)()` is invalid code. Try `immutable
MyClass x = new MyClass();`.
