On 06/09/2015 11:11 AM, ketmar wrote:
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda_calculus
