any news on const/invariant?

[Walter Bright]

Bill Baxter wrote:
> But is it important enough to justify the extra complication?  We get by 
> in D1.0 without const at all, after all.  Java gets by without it too. 
> I'm ready to accept a const that can't express every nuance if it 
> enables greater simplicity.

It is clear that the previous implementation of const, while it allowed 
for very nuanced control, was worthless because it was too complicated.

Going back and rethinking things, it is apparent that things like final 
only serve a local purpose, not an API one, and so have limited utility 
for their complexity.