On Nov 29, 2007 3:17 PM, Regan Heath <regan at netmail.co.nz> wrote: > I think I'd rather loose: > (*) const as a storage-class But if you did that, you wouldn't be able to declare const member functions. You'd have to come up with a new syntax for that, or use "invariant" in place of const (... which, come to think of it is not such a bad idea)