Re: [18] Policy on IMMUTABLE functions and Unicode updates

Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> writes:
> So you are proposing we add STATIC to VOLATILE/STABLE/IMMUTABLE (in the
> third position before IMMUTABLE), give it IMMUTABLE semantics, mark
> builtin functions that deserve it, and document with suitable caution
> statements?

What is the point of that, exactly?

I'll agree that the user documentation could use some improvement
in how it describes the volatility levels, but I do not see how
it will reduce anybody's confusion to invent multiple aliases for
what's effectively the same volatility level.  Nor do I see a
use-case for actually having multiple versions of "immutable".
Once you've decided you can put something into an index, quibbling
over just how immutable it is doesn't really change anything.