Differentiate const flavors using CASE?

[kris]

Chris Nicholson-Sauls wrote:
> 
> 
> kris wrote:
> 
>> janderson wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> //Using your other suggestion:
>>> foreach(reverse) (item ; collection) (item2 ; x->GetColection(b)) 
>>> (item3 ; collection3)
>>> {
>>>
>>> }
>>>
>>> Its starting to get hard and harder to read IMO.
>>>
>>> Although perhaps the reverse could be come sort of iterator 
>>> mechanism. You could define what order items are visited.  I mean, 
>>> reverse would not be a keyword at all and would exist in some 
>>> library.  Although I'm not sure how it would be implemented, and it 
>>> may defeat the purpose of foreach_reverse being optimal.
>>>
>>> Just a thought.
>>
>>
>> shouldn't this perhaps be something like:
>>
>> foreach (item; collection) (item2; x->GetColection(b))(item3; 
>> collection3.reverse)
>> {
>>
>> }
>>
> 
> Or better still, if we wanted to keep 'reverse' away from the collection:
> 
> foreach (item; collection) (item2; x->GetColection(b)) (item3; 
> collection3; reverse) {
> }
> 
> I wouldn't be above a 'foreach(i,x ; source ; order)' syntax in general, 
> really.
> 
> -- Chris Nicholson-Sauls

Except for one thing, Chris; basing the syntax on 'keywords' limits one 
to what the compiler chooses to support? Basing the opApply() selection 
on a method/property name instead (with optional arguments also) leaves 
the door wide open for any implementation you can imagine?