The Status of Const

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 11:00:21 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu  
<SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:

> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 23:20:55 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu  
>> <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 08/13/2010 06:35 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
>>>> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>>>> I like how it reads naturally. I think it's also syntactically
>>>>> unambiguous. Walter, please give this one some attention, I'd love to
>>>>> see this fixed.
>>>>
>>>> This was endlessly discussed maybe 3 years ago. I probably invested  
>>>> over
>>>> a hundred hours in trying to make it work.
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't work.
>>  Perhaps part of this is the reluctance to reexamine something which  
>> was hard to prove correct given the ideas at the time?
>>  However, the idea is attainable.  For the simple fact that we have  
>> tail-const references in other parts of the language.  All that is  
>> missing is syntax.
> [snip]
>
> This seems to be a misquote. You are replying to Walter, not me.

I was replying to both your points and Walter's.  Walter's name is quoted  
just below yours.

-Steve