Prompted by Lyndon's question earlier today:
a.
julia> function f1(x::Float64)
const y = x;
y = "This should throw an error since y is of constant type";
return y;
end
f1 (generic function with 1 method)
julia> f1(1.0)
"This should throw an error since y is of constant type"
Why does the const keyword not work as expected here? (i.e., disallow assigning a string to y which has been declared as const).
b.
julia> function f2(x::Float64)
show(x);
const x = 1.;
end
f2 (generic function with 1 method)
julia> f2(1.0)
ERROR: UndefVarError: x not defined
Stacktrace:
[1] f2(::Float64) at ./REPL[1]:2
Why does defining x as const on line 3 affect the value of x on line 2?
c.
In particular, this prevents me from doing:
function f(x::Float64)
const x = x; # ensure x cannot change type, to simulate "strong typing"
x = "This should throw an error";
end
I was going to offer this as a way to simulate "strong typing", with regard to Lyndon's "counterexample" comment, but it backfired on me, since this function breaks at line 2, rather than line 3 as I expected it to.
What is causing this behaviour? Would this be considered a bug, or intentional behaviour?
Naming conventions aside, is there a more acceptable way to prevent an argument passed into a function from having its type altered?
(as in, is there a defined and appropriate way to do this: I'm not after workarounds, e.g. creating a wrapper that converts x to an immutable type etc)
EDIT:
So far, this is the only variant that allows me to enforce constness in a function, but it still requires the introduction of a new variable name:
julia> function f(x::Float64)
const x_const::Float64 = x;
x_const = "helle"; # this will break, as expected
end
but even then, the error just complains of an "invalid conversion from string to float" rather than an "invalid redefinition of a constant"
Because const in local scope is not yet implemented: