Fully transitive const is not necessary

[Bill Baxter]

Walter Bright wrote:
> Craig Black wrote:
>> Walter/Andrei are under the impression that transitive const is 
>> necessary for multiprogramming, but they have not presented a detailed 
>> explanation about why it is necessary.  It sounds like a more detailed 
>> explanation of the merits of transitive const from Walter/Andrei would 
>> help here.
> 
> That'll all come when we get the details worked out on how D will 
> support multiprogramming. It's an ongoing effort, and current events are 
> leading us to believe that this is getting extremely important.

If the ultimate goal is support for multiprogramming, then shouldn't the 
detailed design work should start *there*, with how to do great 
multiprogramming?  Rather than with const.

Not saying that you guys have done this, but I know from my own 
experience doing research that it's easy to get hung up trying to solve 
a tough but solvable problem that seems relevant for getting from A to 
B, only to realize in the end that it was not as relevant as I thought.

--bb