Extended Type Design.

[Don Clugston]

Frits van Bommel wrote:
> Don Clugston wrote:
>> But then this really surprises me:
>>
>>> final int a = 2;
>>>
>>> void f(final int b)
>>> {
>>> }
>>> The choice of "final" in the second case prevents f from changing its 
>>> argument,
>>  > and it's the free will choice of f's author. The "final" does not
>>  > influence f's signature or how other people use it.
>>  > It's just constraining f's implementation.
>>
>> because it seems that that we still have 'const' surprises for C++ 
>> refugees.
> 
> I don't see how this would be a surprise for anyone coming from C++. 
> This is exactly how 'const' works for value types, isn't it?

Yes. The point is that for some uses of C++ const, you have to use 
'const', while for others you need to use 'final'. I feel that this 
weakens the argument for using the word 'const' in the C++ sense. The 
hypothetical C++ refugee is still going to have culture shock when using 
D const.