First Draft: Static Single Assignment

[Paul Backus]

On Tuesday, 2 December 2025 at 08:03:29 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> You are correct in the behavior.
>
> Whether this will cause problems or not, is a little less 
> clear. Inserting `final` into the overload process adds another 
> axis and so a great deal of complexity. I initially designed a 
> very simple overload system, but things have gotten out of 
> hand. I don't wish to repeat the C++ error of nobody knowing 
> how overloading works; programmers just try random things until 
> they get something that works. We are already perilously close 
> to that.
>
> Personally, overloading is overused.
>
> It also would change the name mangling, another disruption.

I agree that making final a full-fledged type qualifier would add 
a considerable amount of additional complexity to the language.

However, I do not think the best solution to that problem is to 
implement it in this strange, halfway-in-between state, where 
it's technically a storage class but sometimes *behaves* like a 
type qualifier. This is the exact kind of confusing dessert 
topping/floor wax duality that you (rightly) criticize in C++'s 
reference types.

If we are not willing to commit to making final a fully-fledged 
type qualifier, then I think we would be better off not including 
it in the language at all. If it's not worth doing right, it's 
not worth doing.