D const design rationale

[Bruno Medeiros]

Bill Baxter wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/const.html
> """
> But there is a need for a constant declaration referencing a mutable type.
> """
> 
> Also in the discussion of final, the word that always comes to my mind 
> is 'binding'.  It's the binding of the variable name to its value that's 
> final.   You say, "A final declaration, once it is set by its 
> initializer or constructor, cannot ever change its value for its 
> lifetime."  which to me is kind of vague.  I not sure what it means that 
> "a declaration cannot change its value".  Does a declaration even have a 
> value?  "I'm setting this declaration to 5" -- seems like unusual 
> terminology to me.
> 
> 

I highly agree. That terminology usage made me grind my teeth when 
reading the article! A declaration "having a value"/"referencing a 
mutable type"? It's not just unusual, it's plain nonsensical!
'Binding' is better, but I'm also not 100% keen on it. I've been using 
terms such as 'top-level type', and also 'immediate value'.
BTW, the 'immediate value' of a variable/expression is what I call, by 
definition: the value that changes when an assignment is made to that 
variable/expression.
I've found that in Walter's article, when he mentions "declaration", in 
most cases he means either 'top-level type', or 'immediate value'.

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - MSc in CS/E student
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D