The Status of Const

[Walter Bright]

Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> I like how it reads naturally.  I think it's also syntactically 
> unambiguous.  Walter, please give this one some attention, I'd love to 
> see this fixed.

This was endlessly discussed maybe 3 years ago. I probably invested over a 
hundred hours in trying to make it work.

It doesn't work.

It wasn't the syntax. There were many syntaxes proposed. The type system loses 
its coherency with such a special case in it. Generic code has weird problems, 
type deduction gets strange, types lose their composability, etc.

But there is a solution:

    const(Object)* o;

Yes, under the hood it's 2 levels of indirection. But it works, it requires no 
special syntax, it is completely consistent with the rest of how the type system 
works, there are no corner holes in it, etc.