Is This a Solution For the Const/Rebindable Issue?

[Mehrdad]

On 6/12/2011 11:00 PM, Mehrdad wrote:
> == Quote from Steven Schveighoffer (schveiguy at yahoo.com)'s article
>> What is the type of s.o?  Hint, it can't be final, because final isn't part of the type.
>> What is the type of&s.o?
>> If the type of s.o is T (let's say) and the type of&s.o is not T*, then I think we have a problem.
>> I just think it doesn't work.  Maybe you can figure out a way it can, but I don't think it can be done
> without severe confusing semantics.
>> -Steve
> Type of s.o: const(Object), like before. Can be reassigned.
> Type of&s.o: Pointer to a const(Object)... yeah I think I finally see. x_____x
>
> Gosh, that sucks... thanks for the explanation, I appreciate it. :) I'll see if I can figure out a way
> (though I doubt I can, lol)...
Hm... how about if you just don't allow the address of a final variable 
to be taken?
I'm probably missing something (it's past midnight...) but is that a 
potential solution?