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

[Russell Lewis]

John Reimer wrote:
>> Maybe it's time to stop spinning our wheels here and start making 
>> progress on other things.
> 
> I really don't know... I wouldn't say that wheels have been exactly 
> spinning.  I'd like to remain somewhat optimistic and think that there 
> have been two steps forward and one step back.  It's yet unclear, 
> though.  At any rate, I doubt people will stop just because it's been 
> suggested to stop. That's been tried before and tends to fail miserably. :D

Heh.  I agree on both points.  I made a passing reference to this in my 
original post, but I wanted to amplify it: D's const is a *huge* step 
forward from C++'s.  In particular, my whole view of const changed 
significantly when I finally grok'ed the difference between "const" and 
"invariant".  I was simply observing that we continue to struggle to 
reach the "perfect", "correct", and "understandable" const.  You may be 
right, that it will be impossible to do so in D, but I continue to hope 
that some very smart person will put it all together, someday. :)

As for the practical statement that const isn't going away, you're 
probably right.  That's why I keep contributing to the discussions about 
it. :)