Another Transitive const solution

[Jarrett Billingsley]

"Alex Burton" <alexibu at mac.com> wrote in message 
news:ftjfrg$24lu$1 at digitalmars.com...
> Jarrett Billingsley Wrote:
>
>> "Alex Burton" <alexibu at mac.com> wrote in message
>> news:fti5dd$8h7$1 at digitalmars.com...
>> >I wonder how many lurkers like me are waiting for D 2.0s const system to 
>> >be
>> >sorted out so that we can start using it.
>> > Experience shows that const is viral and you are either using it or not
>> > using it, and if libraries are using it, then you have to use it or you
>> > can't use the libraries.
>> > So I am not going to write a bunch of D 1.0 code until D 2.0's 
>> > transitive
>> > const is fixed.
>>
>> What?  What does constness in D2 have anything to do with D1?
>>
> Knowing that fundamental changes to the language will come in the next 
> version makes me hesitant to start writing lots of code in D1.
>

The entire reason for making D1 _D1_ was so that people _would_ start using 
it.  It strikes me as very odd that the exact opposite seems to have 
happened.  You're not the only one to come to this decision.

Personally I won't even consider D2 until it's frozen.  Furthermore just 
because you write code in D1 doesn't mean you'll _have_ to start using D2.