Overloading "final" was Java's rather inept attempt to define objects with value semantics rather than container semantics
Can you tell me more about that, or point to something?
"Carl Mäsak" wrote:
> > What is the point of marking things readonly if you can turn it off?
>
> There are many possible reasons, I think.
>
> * The code that declares the variable readonly might not be available
> to you (compiled to bytecode, fetched by RCP etc),
> * or it might be available b
On 2008 May 15, at 1:30, Me Here wrote:
"John M. Dlugosz" wrote:
no strong_type_check :rw
in scope can turn that off, in case you want to play dirty tricks.
What is the point of be able to mark things readonly if the compiler
does reject assignment attempts?
(assuming you meant "doesn't")
"Me Here" (>), John (>>), Carl (>>>), Patrick ():
>> >> But yes, I expect that it will be caught as
>> > > a compile-time error.
>> >>
>> >
>> > And do you agree it's reasonable to expect this of every compiler?
>>
>> I think that is the point of declared types. But, something like
>>
>> no s
"John M. Dlugosz" wrote:
> Carl Mäsak cmasak-at-gmail.com |Perl 6| wrote:
> > Pm (>):
> >
> > > In Rakudo's case, we just haven't implemented read-only traits
> > > on variables yet.
> >>
> >
> > Goodie. I guessed as much.
> >
> >
> >> But yes, I expect that it will be caught as
> > > a
