Adam D. Ruppe, el 19 de enero a las 10:56 me escribiste: > On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:52:16AM -0300, Leandro Lucarella wrote: > > I think he includes D1 code, which would be harder to port to D2. Makes > > sense to me, that's why I think introducing the := operator as an alias to > > immutable/const would be a good compromise. It makes extremely easy to use > > immutable/const variables while keeping backward compatibility. > > > Would this be a realistic fear with it? > > receiver := 1; > > reciever := 2; // meant to rebind, but spelling error goes unnoticed by > compiler > > > If so, bah. Of course, I like it how it is now anyway.
I don't understand, you are vulnerable to that kind of bugs now too: const receiver = 1; const reciever = 2; // meant to rebind, but spelling error goes unnoticed by compiler -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- aFR [...@my.farts.cause.nuclear.reaction.org] has quit IRC (Ping timeout)