Re: Real constants

[Juanma Barranquero]

On 7/15/05, Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> wrote:

> That seems to be the only real motivation (the others are more like "why not
> have it"?).

Well, I won't say that. It's more: "why not use them for the same uses
that they have in other languages". And moreover, having defconst's
which don't "const" is cognitive dissonance.

> E.g. my local Emacs's strings are
> non-mutable.  I.e. I like to try and add some constraint which seems to be
> generally not broken, and see if/where it gets broken.  This is a general
> technique to learn to understand some unknown piece of code.

Interesting.

> Of course I also strongly believe in non-mutable objects, so I like the idea
> of constants and non-mutable strings, but I know it's a waste of time to try
> and include those things in elisp.

Yeah, I know now, too.

Thanks,
                    /L/e/k/t/u