Extended Type Design.

[Lars Ivar Igesund]

Don Clugston wrote:

> I completely agree with this. The gripe I have is that 'const' is a
> completely inappropriate term for 'const-as-in-C++'. It's a bizarre
> misnomer to use 'const' to mean "don't touch". The only benefit (albeit
> a considerable one) of this nomenclature is compatibility with C++
> nomenclature, especially the term "const correctness".
> D currently has a 'const' which actually means "constant", it seems
> dreadful to exchange that for a clearly inferior "don't touch" meaning.
> I'm concerned that you may have spent so much time in C++ that you've
> become accustomed to "const" == "don't touch"; all of my previous posts
> have been arguing that this is a grossly unnatural association.
> 
> It is possible that the C++ misnomer is so entrenched that D needs to
> perpetuate it, even at the expense of breaking all existing D code that
> uses 'const'.

I agree with Don here.

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
Dancing the Tango