In this declaration (tango.io.Console.d from Tango2):

__gshared immutable immutable(char)[] Eol = "\r\n";

Aren't the two `immutable` keywords redundant? Why would `__gshared` be necessary for such an immutable type?

Thanks

Dne 12.11.2013 19:49, Nicolas Sicard napsal(a):
> In this declaration (tango.io.Console.d from Tango2):
>
> __gshared immutable immutable(char)[] Eol = "\r\n";
>
> Aren't the two `immutable` keywords redundant? Why would `__gshared` be
> necessary for such an immutable type?
>
> Thanks

Hi,

this declaration is equal to

__gshared immutable string Eol = "\r\n";

Those two immutables are not redundant, because it is an array of immutable chars (string), that is itself immutable.

The __gshared should not be necessary, but given some quirks with type system and concurrency, it may be necessary to have it. But this is just a guess from me.

Drasha

On Tuesday, 12 November 2013 at 20:09:57 UTC, Martin Drašar wrote:
> Those two immutables are not redundant, because it is an array of immutable chars (string), that is itself immutable.

It is redundant because "immutable" is transitive. "immutable char[]" is equivalent.

But Tango has lot of meaningless and redundant attributes ( "final private" ;) )

On Tuesday, 12 November 2013 at 20:16:31 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> On Tuesday, 12 November 2013 at 20:09:57 UTC, Martin Drašar wrote:
>> Those two immutables are not redundant, because it is an array of immutable chars (string), that is itself immutable.
>
> It is redundant because "immutable" is transitive. "immutable char[]" is equivalent.
>
> But Tango has lot of meaningless and redundant attributes ( "final private" ;) )

That´s what I thought. So no hidden subtlety here, just hyperprotection :)
Thanks