On Fri, 03 Dec 2010 08:22:01 -0500, Steven Schveighoffer
<schvei...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 03 Dec 2010 08:00:43 -0500, Bruno Medeiros
<brunodomedeiros+s...@com.gmail> wrote:
The above are not trivial differences, so I do not agree that it
constitutes full logical const, only a limited form of it. More
concretely, it doesn't constitute logical const in in the sense where
you can use that as argument to say "logical const already exists, it's
just clunky to use", so let's add it to the language formally. Like if
mutable members where just syntax sugar, or a betterment of safety
rules.
I disagree, I think it does prove logical const already exists. How do
you define logical const?
I'll add to this that synchronization issues can be handled. They should
not play a role in 'does logical const exist', they should only play a
role in 'does efficient logical const exist'.
-Steve
