Stepping back and looking at constness from another angle.

[Walter Bright]

Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> Carlos Santander, el  5 de junio a las 21:15 me escribiste:
>> invariant(char)[new] ret = "prefix";
> 
> Syntax is getting so obscure... I'm scared.
> 

Think of invariant(type) this way: imagine a template that creates a 
pointer to its type argument:

	template Pointer(T)
	{
	    alias T* Pointer;
	}

and used like:

	int x;
	Pointer!(int) p = &x;

This is the notion of the "type constructor". So, let's think about 
doing it for const/invariant:

	template Const(T)

and:

	Const!(int)

from there it's a short step to just:

	const(int)

i.e. it "const-ifies" its argument.