Differentiate const flavors using CASE?

[Chris Nicholson-Sauls]

kris wrote:
> janderson wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> shouldn't this perhaps be something like:
> 
> foreach (item; collection) (item2; x->GetColection(b))(item3; 
> collection3.reverse)
> {
> 
> }
> 

Or better still, if we wanted to keep 'reverse' away from the collection:

foreach (item; collection) (item2; x->GetColection(b)) (item3; collection3; reverse) {
}

I wouldn't be above a 'foreach(i,x ; source ; order)' syntax in general, really.

-- Chris Nicholson-Sauls