Extended Type Design.

[Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website For Email)]

Benji Smith wrote:
> 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?

This should be a compiler error.

Andrei