any news on const/invariant?

[Oskar Linde]

Walter Bright wrote:

> Because those alternatives all look terrible. And frankly, how could 
> anyone be confused about what:
>     const x = 3;
> means? I can't understand throwing that out to improve clarity?

Honestly, I am confused about what that means. If I define an integer 
constant x, don't I want a pointer to that constant to be 
invariant(int)*? Doesn't that mean that constants should rather be 
defined as:

invariant x = 3;

Or am I wrong? What am I missing here?

I am to tired right now to reiterate my full thoughts on the keywords 
(and I am sure you are all very thankful for that :) ), but it still 
feels like the keywords are reversed:

invariant === constant
     const === read only

-- 
Oskar