any news on const/invariant?

[Georg Wrede]

Walter Bright wrote:
> Derek Parnell wrote:
> 
>> If this truely is a case where "Head const turned out to be an 
>> unexplainable, incomprehensible feature." and/or is too hard to 
>> implement, then I'll go with the flow. I haven't seen evidence of
>> that being the case yet, regardless of Walter's statements so far.
> 
> The only person I know of who understood it was Andrei. This is despite 
> many hours spent trying to explain it with pencil and paper, on 
> whiteboards (at the D conference), and on the n.g. Now, I'll be the 
> first to say I stink at explaining concepts to people, but I watched 
> Andrei try and fail at this repeatedly, and Andrei is very good at 
> explaining things.
> 
> I do not know why it is so hard to explain, but it is, and it's clear I 
> was bashing my head on a rock with it, and that rock was going to sink D 
> 2.0 if it wasn't changed.

I do.

(Appologies, but:) "Poorly understood is poorly explained."

Even if it was cosmology, black holes, or the behavior of your neighbor; 
once thoroughly understood, you should be able to convey it in 
understandable terms to your audience.

So, either Andrei has to rethink the whole thing, or we have to assume 
that the state of the art is, er, diffuse.

NO offense.