On 11/16/2015 08:51 AM, Marc Schütz wrote:
On Monday, 16 November 2015 at 02:26:29 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Yah, I agree with that argument. Probably @mutable is a more
principled way to go about things.
Glad to here that. I think the current transitive const system is really
good and shouldn't be watered down beyond necessity. And a @mutable
keyword, too, shouldn't just mean "immutability or const-ness end here",
thus allowing any kind of mutation. What we actually need for
immutable/const refcounting etc. is _non-observable mutation_, i.e.
physical mutability, but without observable effects outside of the
type's implementation (better yet, restricted to very short parts of it,
just like @trusted).
The challenge is proving that a mutation is not observable. Got an
attack on that? -- Andrei
