'final' variables

[Sean Kelly]

Stewart Gordon wrote:
> Tyler Knott Wrote:
>> Lionello Lunesu Wrote:
>>> What's the use of "final" for variables?  I'm saying "for 
>>> variables" because for methods the benefit is only too clear.
>> Because the "const" keyword is being repurposed for read-only 
>> references to mutable or non-mutable data, we need a new 
>> keyword for non-mutable variables.
> <snip>
> 
> C++ manages with const for both, so why can't D?
 > What circumstance is there in which either keyword would be valid
 > with different meanings?

Some D reference types do not have the pointer qualifier, so this C++ 
declaration:

     int const * const x;

could not be directly reproduced in D, except for maybe:

     int const [] const x;

which is horrifying :-)  And it still doesn't address the issue of class 
references.


Sean