I believe the standard counterargument goes: - either it's transitive, in which ... | Hacker News

Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit

		JonChesterfield 69 days ago \| parent \| context \| favorite \| on: John Carmack on mutable variables I believe the standard counterargument goes: - either it's transitive, in which case your type system is very much more complicated - or it isn't, in which case it's a near useless liability Naturally C++ runs with the latter, with bonus extra typing for all the overloads it induces.

maleldil 69 days ago [–]

How isn't it transitive in C++? If the variable/reference is const, you can't modify fields, and you can only call const methods. What else do you need?

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact