Latest const expansion

[Regan Heath]

Regan Heath wrote:
> Alexander Panek wrote:
>> Regan Heath wrote:
>>> Thoughts?  Too complicated?  :P
>>
>> It's a tad complicated, but makes sense. More sense - to me - than the 
>> former const/invariant/final and the upcoming const/invariant 
>> combinations. At least you summed it up in a way so I understand it. :)
>>
>> Yet, I have some questions:
>> -- 
>> class A { int i; }
>>
>> const(*A) a;
>> -- 
>> Do I understand correctly? The variable `a' - as in a reference to an 
>> instance of `class A' is mutable, but the instance `a' refers to is 
>> not? (read as: `class A { const { int i; ... } }', just for this 
>> instance reference) This also means, that you can reference to another 
>> instance with `a':
>> -- 
>> a = b;
>> -- 
>> Right?
> 
> Correct.
> 
>> -- 
>> const(&A) a;
>> -- 
>> This means, that the reference to the class instance is not mutable, 
>> yet the actual instance is?
> 
> Correct.
> 
>> What exactly do `const(T)[]' and `const(T)*' imply? Immutable data, or 
>> immutable reference/pointer?
> 
> Immutable data.

Slight correction;  'data' in this case is whatever the type of T is, 
which could be a class reference or a pointer, of course.

Regan