Proposal: forward compatibility

[Denis Koroskin]

A quote wrote some time ago:

"Sean Kelly" wrote
> Bill Baxter wrote:
>> Sean Kelly wrote:
>>> dsimcha wrote:
>>>> On another note, anyone have any idea when/if Tango for D2, and 
>>>> Tangobos for Tangofor D2, will be available?  There are things I like  
>>>> and dislike aboutboth Tangoand Phobos, and I really wish I could mix  
>>>> and match modules from themwithoutgiving up my D2 features.  For  
>>>> example, I like Phobos's much simpler IOAPI, less"OO everywhere" look  
>>>> and feel and "simple operations should be simple"mentality,but I like  
>>>> Tango's extra math and threading stuff and richer featureset in 
>>>> general.  Also, I've written a decent amount of Phobos code that I 
>>>> don't feel likeporting.
>>> There's no timeframe for D2 support at the moment.  I may look into at 
>>> least having the runtime be cross-compatible, but porting the user code 
>>> would require changes in structure / coding strategy that I can't see 
>>> anyone wanting to make.
>> It seems to me that some people do actually like D2 and aren't using 
>> Tango precisely because there's no D2 support.  So who knows, maybe 
>> you'll find there's a new crop of D2/Tango volunteers that show up once 
>> the ball gets rolling.  Steven S. for one, perhaps.
> Yup.  There has been enough interest that I think it's worth getting the 
> runtime working at least.  The only real obstacle to that right now is 
> time.  The runtime uses the standard C, Posix, and Win32 packages for 
> various things and none of these are D2 compatible at the moment.  So the 
> sticking point is really that I need to find the time to go through the 
> standard C and Posix specs and add "in" to all the function parameters 
> that are const in the C APIs.  I should have left /*const*/ as a 
> placeholder when I created the modules but... oh well.  Live and learn.

Not /*const*/ but Const!()