const

[Sean Kelly]

== Quote from Walter Bright (newshound1 at digitalmars.com)'s article
> Sean Kelly wrote:
> > Walter Bright wrote:
> >> Jason House wrote:
> >>> Back when everyone was trying to understand the new const designs, we
> >>> all
> >>> called const "readonly".  Every time someone asks today, we always
> >>> describe
> >>> it as readonly. Why not use that term if it makes sense to everyone?!
> >>
> >> const, readonly, invariant, and immutable all mean exactly the same
> >> thing.
> >
> > ...and yet we currently use 'const' and 'invariant' for two entirely
> > different concepts.
> Yes. I suppose we could invent a name, like frzapper instead, but I
> don't think that would help.

Surely you aren't suggesting that the English language consists entirely of
four words, all which have the same meaning?  That aside, my point was
that I find it somewhat troubling that you feel this way and yet still chose
the keywords that we have now.  Surely, a language should prefer a literal
representation which accurately describes the underlying concept being
symbolized.  If you actually felt that 'const' and 'invariant' had distinct
meanings which were appropriate for the underlying concepts then I'd
feel more at ease, even if I didn't agree.


Sean