[nem-en] Const vs. Static non-mutable

[Kamil Skalski]

Also, we should decide what to do with non-static  immutable
'volatile'-marked fields :-)

2007/2/20, Vladimir Reshetnikov <v.reshetnikov at gmail.com>:
> For me, it is not so confusing, and it is better then introducing a new keyword.
> Note, that in C#, you cannot declare readonly volatile field, so we
> may use this combination for our purposes :)
>
> On 2/20/07, Kamil Skalski <kamil.skalski at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yap... though this is a little bit confusing (difference between
> > volatile and mutable volatile)
> >
> > 2007/2/20, Vladimir Reshetnikov <v.reshetnikov at gmail.com>:
> > > On 2/20/07, Kamil Skalski <kamil.skalski at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I would prefer just to control this by "mutable".  Or maybe allow
> > > > specifying "volatile" to prevent literalizing the field?
> > >
> > > Do you mean:
> > >
> > > class A {
> > >   static y : int = 1; // const
> > >   static volatile y : int = 1; // static readonly
> > >   static mutable y : int; // static mutable
> > >   static mutable volatile y : int; // static mutable volatile
> > > }
> > >
> > > ?
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > https://nemerle.org/mailman/listinfo/devel-en
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Kamil Skalski
> > http://nazgul.omega.pl
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > https://nemerle.org/mailman/listinfo/devel-en
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> https://nemerle.org/mailman/listinfo/devel-en
>


-- 
Kamil Skalski
http://nazgul.omega.pl