On 2/16/2016 6:20 PM, Dicebot wrote:
The problem with this DIP is that it speaks about type system semantics
and what matters first is memory model (which is currently very
under-defined as soon as you step from a "the GC" world).
Physical immutability is demanding but it also has great value in its
simplicity and being hard to fool. Any language change that is going to
reject this notion has to be really strongly justified in terms of what
is gained and what is lost and not come simply because expressing such
semantics is possible.
Yeah, I think we're on the same page with this.
Most of what people find frustrating about D's transitive const/immutable is its
very nature of not being sloppy and full of holes.
