[OT] Microsoft filled patent applications for scoped and immutable types

[Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d]

On 8/28/2014 2:53 AM, "Jérôme M. Berger" wrote:
> 	I should have said that in D it is used when declaring an instance
> (i.e. at the place of the instance declaration) whereas in the
> patent it is used when declaring the type. For a patent lawyer, this
> will be enough to say that the patent is new.

Um,

    alias immutable(char)[] string;

is declaring a type. It is not used in this case as a storage class, and there 
is no instance being declared. String is indeed a type.


> 	Aliases are not really prior art either since they do not allow
> creating an immutable type without also creating the corresponding
> mutable type.

This seems to me to be reductio ad absurdum. And how does the patent say an 
immutable T is to be created without saying T anywhere?


> PS: The above does not mean that I think the patent is valid (as a
> matter of fact I don't). It only means that the "immutable" keyword
> in D is not enough to invalidate it IMO.

It's more than immutable, you're right. D also has transitive immunity, which is 
a feature of the patent, and also relaxed immutability during construction, 
which is also a point in the patent.

In fact, the patent looks like an explanation of how immutability works in D.