Stepping back and looking at constness from another angle.

[Carlos Santander]

Walter Bright escribió:
> Carlos Santander wrote:
>> I guess that's clear, but what does it mean when there're no parentheses?
> 
> When it has no parentheses, it behaves as a "storage class" rather than 
> a "type constructor", and has the current meaning (along with all of the 
> type is const, and the symbol is final).

And here's where it gets confusing. However, like I said before, I'll understand 
it later, when it's actually out. Thanks!

-- 
Carlos Santander Bernal