On Sat., 20 Oct. 2018, 12:10 am Dominikus Dittes Scherkl via Digitalmars-d, <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, 20 October 2018 at 06:04:45 UTC, Manu wrote: > > How can you find that such a construct carries its weight with > > respect > > to its rare-ness, when its usefulness is very limited to begin > > with? > > I suggested it only because of the resistance to the proposed > implicit cast to shared. But I agree - a cast from mutable to > immutable could also be implicit, and would rarely cause any > problems. Still, I'm sure you would face equally strong > resistance against that. > If an implicit cast from mutable to immutable existed, then immutable would just be const ;) >