Hmm - about manifest/enum

[Jarrett Billingsley]

"Mike" <vertex at gmx.at> wrote in message news:op.t32vfhhpkgfkbn at lucia...

------------------------------
Seems like we're running in circles again.

So I simply have to ask this:

Wouldn't it be better to ditch the _whole concept_ of constness and come
up with some thing else that actually solves problems instead of being an
endless stream of new problems, arguments and confusion? After all this
time it seems quite obvious that the problem here is constness itself, not
the implementation. Didn't C++ fail to get it right? So maybe that's proof
that the whole concept is flawed and that D won't get it right either.

What problem does constness solve anyway? Manifest const, read-only
access, const values/references ... aren't this unrelated concepts that
are shoehorned into one single syntax that doesn't fit?
------------------------------

Congratulations, you've completed the circle.  See my thread on this group 
from 6/4/2007.

Const isn't going to go away for the simple fact that there will always be 
people who were raised on C++ who think that you *need* const to do 
*anything* and *anything else* is heresy.

Sorry.  We lose.