Differentiate const flavors using CASE?

[janderson]

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
> 
> 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.

Now that I think about it:

foreach (const item; collection)
{

}

is probably best.