Do we need a time-out in D evolution?

[Walter Bright]

eao197 wrote:
> I don't agree with you. As a C++ programmer I'm big fun of 'const' -- it 
> have saved me from bugs several times. So when const became a part of D 
> I certaintly rewrite my code with use of const/final/invariant. To show 
> you how it can affect my project I can say -- in one my rather big C++ 
> library (~46K lines) there are 121 *.hpp files with ~280 const methods 
> and ~900 const parameters. I think it is not too easy to write all that 
> staff without const at first and then carefully rewrite and retest it 
> with const.

My experience with const-correctness is you can largely ignore it unless 
you are writing libraries. If you are transforming bug-free, tested code 
into const-correct code, it won't need much testing. Adding const isn't 
likely to break anything at runtime, just at compile time.

Also, although the design is a bit on the complex side, I don't think 
that complexity will show through much in user code. With type inference 
and 'in' parameters, I don't think you'll have to write 'const' all that 
often - certainly much less than in C++.