Conditional Pure?

[%u]

>> Any ideas on how we might be able to get that to work?
> @optional_tag(is(T == int) || is(T == long)), const)

Ouch... a bit less pretty than I'd hoped (the underscore makes it a bit ugly
IMHO). Does it really need to be a tag, though? Why not just:
   optional(const, is(T == int) || is(T == long))
?


> I and few other people have asked for this, I think there is one closed
enhancement request on this in Bugzilla, but I think Walter closed it on the basis
of uniformity in attribute syntax (and maybe compiler simplicity too).
> Sometimes it's worth breaking uniformity if this avoids some troubles,
especially if all this breakage does is creating some easy-to-fix compile-time
errors. I think this is one of such cases.

Huh... but what's the difference between "static" and "const", that allows "const"
to go after the header but doesn't allow "static" to?