On 2010-11-08 02:13, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 11/7/10 2:40 PM, Stewart Gordon wrote:
On 03/11/2010 03:06, Daniel Murphy wrote:
"bearophile"<bearophileh...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:iaqbsb$1d3...@digitalmars.com...
Is it correct for immutable struct fields to act like enum or static
const
fields? (I don't think so, but I am wrong often):
immutable struct fields can be changed inside the constructor, so they
must
be non-static.
<snip>
Const/immutable struct members are an ugly mess, and a big hole in the
const system.
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2625
Stewart.
There are problems with the implementation, not the design. Fixing const
and immutable will be #1 priority once the 64-bit dmd is off the gates.
Andrei
Why can't we get an official roadmap for this? I thought dynamic
libraries was next after 64bit.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
