any news on const/invariant?

[Sean Kelly]

Regan Heath wrote:
> 
> I think I'd rather loose:
> (*) const as a storage-class
> 
> and make the separation between const and invariant more pronounced.
> 
> There would be no need for the caveat above, however:
> 
> const x = 5;
> 
> would become illegal and this breaks existing valid 1.0 code.

This is one reason I think "const" should be used for "data that will 
never change" in D 2.0.  It's what it is in D 1.0.  The concept is 
simply being extended.


Sean