any news on const/invariant?

[Bruce Adams]

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 19:16:34 -0000, Bruce Adams  
<tortoise_74 at yeah.who.co.uk> wrote:

> not be part of the contract.
> You can just as easily say in the body:
>
> foobar(valueType2 bar)
> {
>    const valueType2 IamConst = bar;
>    ... use IamConst
> }
>
> or
>
> foobar(const valueType2)
> {
>    valueType2 IamNotConst = bar;
>    ... use IamNotConst
> }
>
> constness helps a little here but it affects the implementation only.
> Ideally I'd like the to be able to declare constness of an argument in
> the implementation but leave it out of the declaration. Implementation  
> in the compiler
> wise it would be trivial but syntactically its hard to think of  
> something appropriate.
> In D this is even weirder because you don't have separate declarations  
> and implementations.
>
Actually thinking about it. In D the syntax is easier. Implement what you  
like in your
code and your documentation, doxygen or whatever should leave the const  
out.