Another foolish idea for manifest constants

[Bruce Adams]

On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 00:03:01 -0000, Robert Fraser  
<fraserofthenight at gmail.com> wrote:

> Bruce Adams wrote:
>>  A 'manifest' constant is one that is never allowed to use any storage.  
>> There is
>> one 'type' for which this is already true - void.
>> So how about:
>>  void int x = 3;
>>  This is a non-breaking change as using void this way is a syntax error.
>> Granted void is not a storage class.
>
> I don't think that's any better than "enum". And if it's used to infer  
> type as in:
>
I didn't say it was better just an alternative that hadn't be raised.
I read void as meaning something like "nothing/none/does not exist" so its  
dictionary
meaning fits.
I am in the school that sees enums as a set (or list) of values and not a  
hack to
declare constants.

> void str = "hello";
>
> ... it becomes a semantic error.

I don't see why. It could be changed to be a shorthand for:

void auto str = "hello";