Ok, fair, yes what I meant is really that 'iota' is capable of introducing action-at-a-distance, albeit in uncommon situations, because new, preceding iota declarations within a const block change the values of subsequent iotas. This wouldn't happen every time you re-compile your program; I meant that more as a shorthand for "potentially can happen when your program changes"; and I can understand why that shorthand is confusing, because a much more poorly designed implementation of iota could actually, conceivably, change the iota values on every re-compile (in much the same way Go randomizes map iteration order, for example); and this is not what Go does.