How about 'pure' for constants?

[Jarrett Billingsley]

"Janice Caron" <caron800 at googlemail.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.310.1197398288.2338.digitalmars-d at puremagic.com...
> On 12/11/07, Frits van Bommel <fvbommel at remwovexcapss.nl> wrote:
>> So opAdd & friends aren't CTFE'd? That seems like a silly omission, and
>> should be easy enough to fix.
>
> I figure "static" within struct declaration scope means "has no this
> pointer". Only at global scope does it mean CTFE.
>
> I guess "static" was a bad choice of keyword for CTFE!
>
> My personal choice of keyword for CTFE would be /none at all/. Why
> would you need one? Let the compiler decide! If the function is
> /called/ at compile time, then that should be enough to declare it as
> CTFE.

Where did you get this idea?  You don't need to declare a function in any 
special way, at global scope or in structs, to get it to work with CTFE.  If 
a function _can_ be called at compile time, it will be.  Otherwise, it will 
defer the call to runtime.  The same function can be evaluated at compile 
time and at runtime.