Stepping back and looking at constness from another angle.

[Carlos Santander]

Walter Bright escribió:
> 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.

I guess that's clear, but what does it mean when there're no parentheses?

-- 
Carlos Santander Bernal