Perhaps we need to defer const for a while (3.0?)

[Russell Lewis]

Janice Caron wrote:
> On 1/2/08, Russell Lewis <webmaster at villagersonline.com> wrote:
>> Now we've gone through additional iterations (how many so far?) and we
>> still don't have it working quite right.
> 
> We don't? I'm happy enough with what's been promised for D2.009. There
> are just a few outstanding issues (to preserve or not to preserve head
> constancy when determining template type, const-at-the-start versus
> const-at-the-end versus other alternatives for member functions,
> etc.), but for the most part, I think Walter has it cracked.

!

Those seem to me to be the most tricky issues.  If we don't have them 
solved, then we don't really understand the space, IMHO.  If const was 
atomic theory, then our current understanding of it is akin to the 
theory that "electrons move in circular orbits around a nucleus."  It's 
a useful approximation, but we still need to discover quantum mechanics.

And yes, even quantum mechanics has problems...but I hope you get the 
point. :)