PhobosWatch: manifest => enum

[Jason House]

Sean Kelly Wrote:

> Oskar Linde wrote:
> > In D1.0, when 
> > something is *constant*, you simply declare it as const:
> > 
> > struct T {
> >     const int a = 5;
> >     int b;
> > }
> > 
> > static assert(T.sizeof == int.sizeof);
> > 
> > No need to stop and think. In D2.0 it seems like you have to go through: 
> > "Hmm, this value will never change. I will mark it as const.... no wait 
> > invariant... or maybe manifest constant using the enumeration hack?"
> 
> Yup.  This is what I don't like about the current design as well.  What 
> was your orthogonal const proposal again?  I've lost it amid the flood 
> of const posts.

I looked his proposal up earlier today.  It's at http://www.csc.kth.se/~ol/const.pdf

I almost posted asking how D 2.009 "const" differs from his "in" and D 2.009 "invariant" differs from his "const".  I thought I understood, but then I noticed him use "const in" and "const const(T)"...