iterators again

[David B. Held]

Bruno Medeiros wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
>> [...]
>> It'll be an error, since there's no way to deduce the type of foo. But 
>> let's rewrite it as:
>>     final int foo;
>>     auto fooptr = &foo;
>> Since foo cannot change its value, then fooptr must be an 
>> invariant(int)*.
> 
> [...]
> Second, let's change the first example, let's have a Foo instead of an int:
>    final Foo foo;
>    auto fooptr = &foo;
> What would be the type of fooptr?  Would it also be invariant(Foo)* ?
> What would be the type of *fooptr? Would it be invariant(Foo) ?
> If so, would that mean that the following would not be allowed:
>   (*fooptr).membervar = 42 ;
> even though this is:
>   foo.membervar = 42;
> ?

I think that Walter's scenario must type to const(int)*, for 
consistency, even though const(int)* and invariant(int)* are equivalent, 
given that int is an elementary value type.  This leads to the proper 
conclusion that typeof(fooptr) == const(Foo)*, typeof(*fooptr) == 
const(Foo).

Dave