Re: [NoW] Once more about to-be-closed variables

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Subject: Re: [NoW] Once more about to-be-closed variables
From: Patrick Donnelly <batrick@...>
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 15:59:37 -0700

On Tue, Jul 2, 2019, 3:02 PM Egor Skriptunoff <egor.skriptunoff@gmail.com> wrote:

> Why they must be const?

I think it's to prevent the value from being lost and thus, not closed.

Do we need this "protection"?
Which adversary we should be protected from?

Yourself, of course!

References:
- [NoW] Once more about to-be-closed variables, Egor Skriptunoff
- Re: [NoW] Once more about to-be-closed variables, Sean Conner
- Re: [NoW] Once more about to-be-closed variables, Egor Skriptunoff

Prev by Date: Re: [NoW] Once more about to-be-closed variables
Next by Date: Re: tostring userdata
Previous by thread: Re: [NoW] Once more about to-be-closed variables
Next by thread: Re: [NoW] Once more about to-be-closed variables
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread