Persistent list

Ola Fosheim Grøstad via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d at
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 
> reference.

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 mailing list