Unofficial wish list status.(Jul 2008)

[Walter Bright]

Sean Kelly wrote:
> I personally feel that requiring that parameters be const is sufficient 
> for memoizing results.  Requiring invariance assumes a programming model 
> that I simply don't endorse.  But I'll grant that it's certainly the 
> safer approach.

What such a an approach would rely on would be the *convention* that 
nobody would change the referenced const data from one invocation of the 
function to the next. This contradicts the whole premise, and is no 
better than C++.