Differentiate const flavors using CASE?

[janderson]

Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website For Email) wrote:
> Derek Parnell wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 04:53:26 +0900, Bill Baxter wrote:
>>
>>> Here's a random thought:
>>> What about const vs CONST?
>>> The upcase version obviously being the more const of the two.
>>> The original proposal played with punctuation, and we've talked 
>>> plenty about spelling, but we haven't talked about playing with 
>>> case.  It would be an odd-ball among keywords, admittedly, but if you 
>>> asked 100 people which of 'const' and 'CONST' was the most constant 
>>> you'd probably get 100 votes for 'CONST'.  And he could become good 
>>> friends with foreach_reverse, the other odd-ball keyword who is 
>>> disparaged by the other kids because of his obesity and the big 
>>> staple in his belly button.
>>
>> LOL ... Now that *is* funny.
> 
> Yah :o). Speaking of foreach_reverse, probably it would be wise to lobby 
> Walter to deprecate it in favor of foreach(reverse) (item ; collection) 
> { ... }. The keyword(extra) syntax is definitely becoming a D signature 
> syntax.
> 
> 
> Andrei

//Using your other suggestion:
foreach(reverse) (item ; collection) (item2 ; x->GetColection(b)) (item3 
; collection3)
{

}

Its starting to get hard and harder to read IMO.

Although perhaps the reverse could be come sort of iterator mechanism. 
You could define what order items are visited.  I mean, reverse would 
not be a keyword at all and would exist in some library.  Although I'm 
not sure how it would be implemented, and it may defeat the purpose of 
foreach_reverse being optimal.

Just a thought.