Ola Fosheim Grøstad via Digitalmars-d
digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Mon Nov 16 07:24:52 PST 2015
On Monday, 16 November 2015 at 14:08:23 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
> You described immutable, not const. If one thread has a const
> reference, it's entirely possible another thread has a mutable
Are you sure that this is a well defined situation? What is the
point of having "const" if "shared const" is the exact same thing?
Immutable should never ever change for any reason, because the
compiler should be able to cache derived values.
More information about the Digitalmars-d