any news on const/invariant?

[Walter Bright]

Janice Caron wrote:
> Ah, but the natural interpretation of const(...) is that /everything/
> inside the brackets is const. Thus, if I write
> 
>     const(void f(char[] b))
> 
> that "suggests" to me that b is const, since it is inside (albeit
> deeply inside) the const(...) brackets.

That's only if one thinks that const, when applied to a function, also 
influences its return type. There is no reason why transitive const 
should apply in this way.

> But I only want f's "this" to
> be const, not b. Perhaps this is a case where "const at the end"
> creates a more helpful mneumonic?

It leads to awful looking code when you have a lot of them to do.