Why do we have transitive const, again?

[so]

On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 08:24:37 +0300, Mehrdad <wfunction at hotmail.com> wrote:

> D, on the other hand, tries to appeal to everyone but instead has  
> supposedly awesome features (e.g. transitive const) that DON'T work 100%  
> of the time. They only work 95% of the time. You might refuse to believe  
> this, but I'm convinced that this **IS** the reason why it's not being  
> adopted as fast as you'd want it to be. You can continue to justify it  
> as "but it works for 95% of people!" but the fact of the matter is that  
> we've seen otherwise. Believe me, I want to see D get adopted too, but  
> my brain is telling me that there HAS to be a reason it hasn't -- and  
> that reason isn't the compiler bugs or anything of that sort, but the  
> language itself.

Everyone complaining about bugs, features not yet implemented, tool  
support, language transition but i have yet to see someone (if you ignore  
a few trolls) complain about the language itself. I don't understand what  
you are implying. I also don't understand why you are so overzealous on  
lconst. Caching, lazy binding and such are not immutable methods yet most  
people treat it like it was, thanks to the lconst. Its uselessness aside,  
do you imagine the consequences of adding yet another const system on top  
of a superior one? Are you really trying to improve the language or  
sabotage it :)

Const systems be it logical or transitive are nothing but abominations,  
just look what have they done to C++, D. Now you want them both, no you  
got to pick one, and if i were you, i would pick transitive.

Maybe it is you that should adopt the "new language" instead of what you  
are suggesting.