Three legitimate bugs? (D1.061)

[Don]

bearophile wrote:
> Steven Schveighoffer:
>> No, I was simply wrong :)  I think it's by design.  Which means the  
>> original bug report is valid.
> 
> The original bug report is valid, but I don't understand that code still. Is the const implying a static only in some situations?
> 
> Why is this OK for the compiler:
> 
> struct Foo {
>     const Foo f = Foo();
> }
> static assert(Foo.sizeof == 1);
> void main() {}
> 
> 
> While this is not OK for the compiler?
> 
> struct Foo {
>     const Foo f;
> }
> static assert(Foo.sizeof == 1);
> void main() {}
> 
> Bye,
> bearophile

In D1, the two are totally different. The second one is the only 
situation in D1 where 'const' doesn't mean compile-time constant.
I guess the same behaviour has been applied in D2, but I'm not sure if 
that's intentional or not.