On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Greg Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
Are you sure we don't? The ability to persistently re-assign the name is not needed to address the main use cases under consideration, as I understand them to be. In fact, disallowing assignment to the name at all would be fine by me. Hence I would be +0 on using 'const' as the keyword.
Fixed references to mutable objects makes 'const' a rather problematic choice. Besides, if we set the bar at that level of functionality then documenting some conventions for the status quo (i.e. 'private' keyword only arguments) is an adequate response. As Terry noted, there are actually two different features being discussed in the thread, and they differ according to whether or not rebinding is supported. By casting the proposal as syntactic sugar for a particular usage of closures, I'm firmly in the camp that if we change anything here the updated syntax should support rebinding of the shared names. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia