const

[renoX]

Sean Kelly a écrit :
> == Quote from Walter Bright (newshound1 at digitalmars.com)'s article
>> Sean Kelly wrote:
>>> 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.
>> But there aren't any such words - what word means "read only view, but
>> others can modify the value" ? "readonly" isn't it, as that commonly
>> means in embedded systems "nobody can write it" and has been used as a
>> storage class to mean just that in embedded systems languages.
> 
> I've suggested "view" in the past, 

I like it a lot: view as in 'view but don't touch' :-)

renoX



>and there must be others.  Alternately,
> invent a word as you've said or come up with syntax that doesn't require
> a keyword to indicate this concept.  Truth be told however, my issue with
> the keywords in 2.0 has more to do with the change in meaning of "const"
> than with the words themselves.  My initial response above was simply an
> expression of surprise that you felt the words all had identical meanings
> and yet we were using them to represent different things.
> 
> 
> Sean