Logical const
Simen kjaeraas
simen.kjaras at gmail.com
Mon Nov 29 15:57:02 PST 2010
Walter Bright <newshound2 at digitalmars.com> wrote:
> Simen kjaeraas wrote:
>> I am not convinced that such an extension of the type system should be
>> made, but I believe you are wrong in that it is not verifiable. but
>> please, do show me my mistake.
>
> It is not verifiable because nothing prevents you from assigning:
>
> m = random();
>
> That is not logical const.
Pardon my stubbornness (and perhaps ignorance), but how is this any less
logical const than is 'm = 4;' or 'm = n * 3 + cast(int)phaseOfMoon();'?
--
Simen
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list