On Wednesday, November 02, 2016 23:23:22 Nordlöw via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
> On Tuesday, 1 November 2016 at 18:55:26 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
>
> wrote:
> > - Jonathan M Davis
>
> Thanks. I'll go for immutable, when possible, then.
>
> I wish I had a shorter way to write immutable, though :)
>
>
On Tuesday, 1 November 2016 at 18:55:26 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
- Jonathan M Davis
Thanks. I'll go for immutable, when possible, then.
I wish I had a shorter way to write immutable, though :)
Do you think it would be possible to adopt Rust's syntax `let`?
On Tuesday, November 01, 2016 17:52:56 Nordlöw via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
> Should I always, when possible, prefer `immutable` over `const`?
>
> And does `immutable` increase the possibility of the compiler
> doing optimizations, such as common subexpression elimination?
>
> Or can the compile
On 11/01/2016 06:52 PM, Nordlöw wrote:
Should I always, when possible, prefer `immutable` over `const`?
I'd say: prefer immutable.
And does `immutable` increase the possibility of the compiler doing
optimizations, such as common subexpression elimination?
Or can the compiler infer `const` de
Should I always, when possible, prefer `immutable` over `const`?
And does `immutable` increase the possibility of the compiler
doing optimizations, such as common subexpression elimination?
Or can the compiler infer `const` declarations to also be
`immutable`?