DIP53 and DIP49 (ver2) - New definitions for qualified constructors and postblits

[Joseph Rushton Wakeling]

On 18/12/13 21:16, Timon Gehr wrote:
> On 12/18/2013 08:09 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
>> Well, quite :-)  I'm not complaining about the issues here, I'm
>> suggesting that inventing an extra keyword for the cases discussed in
>> these DIPs is not necessary, because the analogy and connection with
>> existing use of const/immutable is valuable.
>
> There is no such analogy or connection.

See my earlier response to Ilya.  If I've interpreted things wrongly, do let me 
know, but I don't see how you can say there is not a useful overlap between the 
meaning placed on these qualifiers in this DIP and the meaning placed on them in 
other circumstances in the language.