const int vs. int const

Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Sat Aug 16 21:55:37 PDT 2014


On Sunday, 17 August 2014 at 02:44:26 UTC, Mike wrote:
> On Saturday, 16 August 2014 at 23:39:59 UTC, Mike wrote:
>> On Saturday, 16 August 2014 at 18:50:08 UTC, Jacob Carlborg 
>> wrote:
>>> On 2014-08-16 01:33, Mike wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sounds like a worthwhile impromement to me.
>>>
>>> Sounds like a breaking change to me. Which will include the 
>>> usual complains.
>>
>> ... and not breaking it will include the same complaints years
>> from now for not fixing it.
>>
>> Mike
>
> Clarification:  I realize nothing is broken, so no "fixing" is
> needed.  But it seems like a nice improvement.

Well, it _does_ follow the language spec, so it's not broken in
that sense, but it's a broken design IMHO in that it causes
confusion and bugs, and it has resulted in complaints in the past
and will continue to do so until it's changed. So, I do think
that it's true that there will ultimately be fewer complaints if
we make the change than there will be if we don't.

- Jonathan M Davis


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list