any news on const/invariant?

[Tomas Lindquist Olsen]

Derek Parnell wrote:
> 
> Okay, I get it. We don't actually need const/invariant at all. Instead we
> just sprinkle our code with asserts to catch these compile-time errors at
> run-time. Neat.
> 

I think this new const sounds like a reasonable compromise to get simple yet still useful const 
semantics. People will never agree 100% on how this should work, and comments like this one 
doesn't help anything.

Walter already said there will be no head/tail const. Just const. Why bother asking how to do 
head const?

(Or have I completely misunderstood things?)