const?? When and why? This is ugly!

[hasen]

Walter Bright wrote:
> grauzone wrote:
>> I didn't mean going back to programming with locks. Instead you could 
>> use the new ideas without extending the type system. As far as I 
>> understand, the language extensions are only needed for verification 
>> (so far).
> 
> Without verification, it's programming by hopeful convention. If you 
> want a reliable system, you need more than hope <g>.

Well .. if you think about OOP and private/public ..

Dynamic languages like python and smalltalk don't enforce 
private/public, and that never was a problem. And, smalltalk is *the* OO 
language (AFAIK)

(this is not really an argument against const per se, it's just an 
argument against an argument for const)