Post #1758320

@teilweise @Sarnau @mayo @dasdom I don't remember which is which, but in one case you can change the value, and in the other you can change it to point to a different string. Neither of which is allowed in Swift. Besides, Swift strings are supposed to be (copy on write) value types, so not comparable to a pointer anyway. Your comparison fits pretty well for classes, though. Unless you use @ mutating as intended. My point was that a const is supposed to be treated exactly like a literal (where semantically equivalent), otherwise it still loses out to plain old nasty # define. Swift let is so much more than const, but is supposed to replace const in the simple cases. (C# goes the other way and adds the "readonly" keyword where a true const is not possible).