const sucks

[Benji Smith]

John Reimer wrote:
> My impression of mutable by default was more than function parameters.
> 
> Weren't we talking something like this when referring to "immutable by 
> default":
> 
> // void foo(int[] a)
> // {
> //     int b;
> //     mutable int c;
> //
> //     /* block declaration */
> //
> //     mutable //     {
> //          int d;
> //          int e;
> //      }
> // }
> 
> 'a' is an implied const (immutable) parameter.
> 'b' is const by default
> 'c', 'd', and 'e' are all declared mutable.
> 
> Isn't this what is meant by "constant by default"?  I haven't described 
> class variables here, of course.
> 
> I'm nervous to comment further lest I have totally misunderstood what's 
> going on. :)

My understanding of the proposal was that "const by default" was only 
for function parameters. And I agree with walter that it's a little but 
wonky and unexpected.

But I liked it anyhow, and I think people could have easily gotten used 
to the distinction in constness between function params and all other 
variables. Especially since the compiler would always be able to catch 
the mistake.

--benji