Walter Bright <newshou...@digitalmars.com> wrote:
Simen kjaeraas wrote:
I am not convinced that such an extension of the type system should be
made, but I believe you are wrong in that it is not verifiable. but
please, do show me my mistake.
It is not verifiable because nothing prevents you from assigning:
m = random();
That is not logical const.
Pardon my stubbornness (and perhaps ignorance), but how is this any less
logical const than is 'm = 4;' or 'm = n * 3 + cast(int)phaseOfMoon();'?
--
Simen
