For D's manifesto: transitivity of shared, const and immutable

[Justin Johansson]

On paper D's concepts of transitivity relating to shared,
const and immutable sound good. However numerous threads
on this ng relating to the same show that there are serious
semantic shortcomings when it comes to using these D idioms
in angst.  So much so are the problems that one ends up not
wanting to use these D features at all.

Surely it would be a good thing to promote D's transitivity
of shared, const and immutable in its manifesto, but how
can this possible done when we all know the semantics of the
same are broken by syntactic limitations?  (Well, at least that
is my analysis.)

Cheers
Justin Johansson