Code behaves incorrectly if it is compiled in std.functional

[Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d]

On 06/09/2015 11:11 AM, ketmar wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Jun 2015 15:30:24 +0000, Marc Schütz wrote:
>
>> On Monday, 8 June 2015 at 15:09:21 UTC, ketmar wrote:
>>> On Mon, 08 Jun 2015 15:47:33 +0200, Timon Gehr wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 06/08/2015 03:11 PM, ketmar wrote:
>>>>> so specifying two storage classes are sometimes valid and sometimes
>>>>> invalid. a perfect consistency!
>>>>
>>>> The compiler sometimes compiles the program and sometimes terminates
>>>> with an error message instead. That's life.
>>>
>>> yeah. "you can't logically deduce it, you have to remember it!"
>>> that's the way to success.
>>
>> That's only if you're talking about the details of the grammar. But for
>> everyday use (even advanced use!) of the language, these are not
>> important. You _don't_ "have to remember it", because you simply don't
>> need it. Noone forces you to write `auto const`, and it gives you no
>> advantages over just `const`. But if you really feel an urge to use
>> strange combinations of storage classes and type modifiers, just do it,
>> and the compiler will tell you whether it's good or not. No need to
>> remember anything. OTOH, if you encounter such a combination in someone
>> else's code, it's still pretty obvious what it means. No problem there
>> either.
>
> i'll keep citing `foreach (auto i)` thingy. it can't be deduced by using
> the knowledge of other language constructs, it can be only remembered.
> the less things one can't deduce language has, the better.
>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda_calculus