const

[Walter Bright]

Sean Kelly wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
>> Jason House wrote:
>>> Back when everyone was trying to understand the new const designs, we 
>>> all
>>> called const "readonly".  Every time someone asks today, we always 
>>> describe
>>> it as readonly. Why not use that term if it makes sense to everyone?!
>>
>> const, readonly, invariant, and immutable all mean exactly the same 
>> thing.
> 
> ...and yet we currently use 'const' and 'invariant' for two entirely 
> different concepts.

Yes. I suppose we could invent a name, like frzapper instead, but I 
don't think that would help.