Invariant doesn't apply to declared symbols

[Janice Caron]

On 11/30/07, Jason House <jason.james.house at gmail.com> wrote:
> Would it be safe to say that "const int* x;" and "final const(int*) x;" are
> the same thing?  Similarly that "invariant int* y;" and "final
> invariant(int*) y;" are the same thing?

Under D2.007 you would be correct. I don't know if "final" has
actually been dropped yet, but I'm assuming it has. It's certainly on
its way out.


> I'd argue that const and invariant should never be a storage class.

That's the conclusion I came to.