On Mon, 08 Jun 2015 15:30:24 +0000, Marc Schütz wrote: > On Monday, 8 June 2015 at 15:09:21 UTC, ketmar wrote: >> On Mon, 08 Jun 2015 15:47:33 +0200, Timon Gehr wrote: >> >>> On 06/08/2015 03:11 PM, ketmar wrote: >>>> so specifying two storage classes are sometimes valid and sometimes >>>> invalid. a perfect consistency! >>> >>> The compiler sometimes compiles the program and sometimes terminates >>> with an error message instead. That's life. >> >> yeah. "you can't logically deduce it, you have to remember it!" >> that's the way to success. > > That's only if you're talking about the details of the grammar. But for > everyday use (even advanced use!) of the language, these are not > important. You _don't_ "have to remember it", because you simply don't > need it. Noone forces you to write `auto const`, and it gives you no > advantages over just `const`. But if you really feel an urge to use > strange combinations of storage classes and type modifiers, just do it, > and the compiler will tell you whether it's good or not. No need to > remember anything. OTOH, if you encounter such a combination in someone > else's code, it's still pretty obvious what it means. No problem there > either.
i'll keep citing `foreach (auto i)` thingy. it can't be deduced by using the knowledge of other language constructs, it can be only remembered. the less things one can't deduce language has, the better.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature