On 2010-12-06 00:16:27 -0500, Graham St Jack
<graham.stj...@internode.on.net> said:
First, I have to say that it is wonderful that someone is taking a
serious look at this area again, and even better, you have come up with
a compiler patch to make it happen!
Some questions (assuming your patch or something like it gets into dmd):
Does this mean that I would be able to write this:
immutable(Foo)ref foo; // create a reference
foo = new immutable(Foo)(); // re-bind it (not sure about "new" syntax
for immutables)
That's the whole point yes. This syntax works with my patch. :-)
Are there any other show-stopping syntax issues that are holding up
widespread adoption/rollout of const-correctness?
Surly there are others issues to solve. But this one is the one I kept
falling into when trying to use immutable objects in my code some time
ago.
What do Walter and Andrei think?
That I'd like to know.
--
Michel Fortin
michel.for...@michelf.com
http://michelf.com/
