const

[Lars Ivar Igesund]

Walter Bright Wrote:

> Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
> > You haven't tried it in a public release despite massive backing (in the NG
> > at least).
> 
> Jerking people around with yet another non-working const regime would 
> not help.
> 
> For example, the C++ const regime has massive backing from the C++ 
> community. But it is fundamentally unsound. If you carefully monitor the 
> email traffic of people working on C++0x, you'll see the problems, too. 
> As programming shifts to more and more multiprogramming, and people get 
> more and more fed up with programs that defy static verification, these 
> unfixable problems will cause more and more people to abandon C++.
> 
> D needs to look to the future, and for that it needs a fundamentally 
> (i.e. mathematically) sound foundation for const.

Yes, sure, but that doesn't change the fact that the keywords chosen in themselves are confusing, and the thing I was referring to.

Lars Ivar