2012/10/20 Nikita Popov <[email protected]>
> Could you maybe explain where exactly "const" would be used?
>
Well "const" and "read-only" have the exact same meaning. You can replace
one by the other. So why create a new keyword?
> Please
> don't forget that we do not use your "foo:bar" syntax, so where would
> the "const" go with the currently used syntax?
>
Don't be rude. It's not a "foo:bar" syntax sent no matter how on this
mailing-list. It was an argumented RFC proposal, with an associated patch
(but yeah, who cares?).
If you want to give it a silly nickname, I'd prefer "public:private". :-)
The RFC was:
public read-only $a {
get { return $this->_a; }
}
It could be:
public const $a {
get { return $this->_a; }
}
Is it so different that it needs a new keyword?
