Extended Type Design.

[Benji Smith]

Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website For Email) wrote:
>> Really? I'd think super const would be used all the time. Anywhere a 
>> class has some invariant field, it'll probably be expressed as super 
>> const (if I'm understanding correctly that super const is the 
>> equivalent of #define constants in C++ or static final constants in 
>> Java).
> 
> No. super const deals with pointers and transitivity. Final deals with 
> non-rebindable symbols. I'd be hard pressed to think of many examples 
> where class members are transitively immutable.

Aha. In that case, what would you think of the declaration:

   super const int MY_CONSTANT = 6;

Since a value type doesn't have any pointers, it wouldn't make any sense 
to apply super-constness to it, right? Should that be a compiler error?

--benji