I believe it's a design choice, if so, could someone explain why?
is immutable better than C#'s readonly so that the readonly
keyword isn't even needed? for example, I'd like to declare a
member as readonly but I can't do it directly because immutable
create a new type (since it's a type
On Monday, 29 June 2015 at 20:12:12 UTC, Assembly wrote:
I believe it's a design choice, if so, could someone explain
why? is immutable better than C#'s readonly so that the
readonly keyword isn't even needed? for example, I'd like to
declare a member as readonly but I can't do it directly
On Monday, 29 June 2015 at 22:11:16 UTC, sigod wrote:
`new immutable(MyClass)()` is invalid code.
It's perfectly fine, actually.
On Monday, 29 June 2015 at 20:12:12 UTC, Assembly wrote:
I believe it's a design choice, if so, could someone explain
why? is immutable better than C#'s readonly so that the
readonly keyword isn't even needed? for example, I'd like to
declare a member as readonly but I can't do it directly
On Monday, 29 June 2015 at 22:22:46 UTC, anonymous wrote:
On Monday, 29 June 2015 at 22:11:16 UTC, sigod wrote:
`new immutable(MyClass)()` is invalid code.
It's perfectly fine, actually.
Yes, you're right. It seems I've mistyped `immutable` when was
checking it with compiler.
