tail const

[so]

> Speaking about D mistakes Steve spoke about missing tail const.
> I was thinking about this, and I fully agree that it is a hole.
> I don't know if it was already discussed, but I was thinking that one  
> could introduce
> 	*const T t1;
> and
> 	*immutable T t2;

Sorry if i am overlooking something but if we are going that far, why not  
just :

const(int)* p; // tail const pointer   - already here
const(int)& r; // tail const reference - will be introduced and quite  
straightforward.

> One can see that this tail const is really a common type, indeed string  
> is such a type, and a function can be pure even if its arguments is  
> *immutable, because any changes would be done to a local copy in the  
> function.
> I think that these things point toward the usefulness of a *const and  
> *immutable attributes.

It is indeed common and IMHO it is the biggest reason why pointers are  
still used too much in C++ where references should be the obvious choice.

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/