const again

[Walter Bright]

Christopher Wright wrote:
>> I've given up on tail const in any of its forms. The new regime has no 
>> tail const, no head const, it's just const, and fully transitive const 
>> at that.
> 
> So if I have:
> const(Foo)* t;
> the pointer is const and points to a const Foo?

No, it is a mutable pointer to a const Foo. A const pointer to a const 
Foo would be:
	const(Foo*) t;

> What about this:
> template Ptr(T) {
>    alias T* Ptr;
> }
> Ptr!(const(Foo)) t;
> 
> If I have a template method that says:
> void Something (T)() {
>    T[] stuff = new T[5];
>    stuff[2] = T.init;
> }
> Something!(const(Foo));
> 
> Will that fail?

Yes, because T[] will be the same thing as const(Foo)[]. Hiding it 
behind an alias and a template won't change that <g>.