iterators again

[Walter Bright]

Bruno Medeiros wrote:
> Hum, you're right, it should type to const instead of invariant, I 
> totally missed that. However I missed because I'm trying to look into 
> another issue, what I really want to know is if the full type of 
> (*(&foo)) will be the same as (foo), and so far it seems not, according 
> to what Walter's said. So
>   typeof(foo) is:  final Foo
> but
>   typeof(*(&foo)) is:  const(Foo)
> which seems a breach in orthogonality, and meaning that this won't be 
> allowed:
>   (*(&foo)).membervar = 42;

final is not a type constructor, it is a storage class. And no, you 
won't be able to change the contents of an instance of a final struct, 
even if you do machinations to do so.