On Friday, September 23, 2011 11:21 Mehrdad wrote: > Er, you answered a question about const with an answer about immutable. :\
I gave more reasons than just immutability. > My point is, what in the world does transitive const have to do with > transitive immutable? > Can't you have immutable(T) be transitive while const(T) being "normal", > as in C/C++? If not, why not? Anything which is const could actually be immutable. immutable(T) is implicitly convertible to const(T). It would be _incredibly_ limiting to immutable for it to be otherwise. You'd have to duplicate functions all over the place so that you had a const and an immutable version, and that results in a combinatorial explosion if you're dealing with multiple function parameters which could be either const or immutable. So, if you need transitive immutable, you need transitive const. - Jonathan M Davis