Logical const

[Walter Bright]

Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Dec 2010 13:57:04 -0500, Bruno Medeiros 
> <brunodomedeiros+spam at com.gmail> wrote:
> 
>> On 29/11/2010 14:56, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>> This has been discussed at length on this newsgroup, and I argued for it
>>> for a long time.  You will not get any traction with Walter, because
>>> I've already proven that logical const == const, and it still doesn't
>>> change his mind.
>>
>> Could you detail a bit what do you mean by logical const == const ? 
>> That doesn't sound right to me.
>>
> 
> Here is where I show how logical const already exists, it's just clunky 
> to use.
> 
> BTW, this was before TLS, so the example would have to be updated a bit.
> 
> http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=58927 

What you're doing is keeping an alternate, mutable reference to each object. 
This does not mean that logical const == const.