Differentiate const flavors using CASE?

[janderson]

Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website For Email) wrote:
> Derek Parnell wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 04:53:26 +0900, Bill Baxter wrote:
>>
>>> Here's a random thought:
>>> What about const vs CONST?
>>> The upcase version obviously being the more const of the two.
>>> The original proposal played with punctuation, and we've talked 
>>> plenty about spelling, but we haven't talked about playing with 
>>> case.  It would be an odd-ball among keywords, admittedly, but if you 
>>> asked 100 people which of 'const' and 'CONST' was the most constant 
>>> you'd probably get 100 votes for 'CONST'.  And he could become good 
>>> friends with foreach_reverse, the other odd-ball keyword who is 
>>> disparaged by the other kids because of his obesity and the big 
>>> staple in his belly button.
>>
>> LOL ... Now that *is* funny.
> 
> Yah :o). Speaking of foreach_reverse, probably it would be wise to lobby 
> Walter to deprecate it in favor of foreach(reverse) (item ; collection) 
> { ... }. The keyword(extra) syntax is definitely becoming a D signature 
> syntax.
> 
> 
> Andrei

I guess one extension to this syntax could be constant iterations (the 
values in the array don't change:

foreach (const) (item ; collection)
{

}

I still think

const foreach (item; collection)
{

}

is better if we did have a feature like this.