std.xml should just go

[so]

> The case is different --I mean the comparison does not hold IIUC.  
> Virtual methods are /intended/ to be overriden, this is precisely part  
> of their semantics. While the whole point of const-the-D-way is to  
> ensure actual constness as marked in a given function's signature,  
> whatever this function itself calls. The contract is such that the  
> reader does not even need to watch further. Again, IIUC (please correct  
> if I'm wrong on this).
>
> Denis

Well you are thinking with the current usage.

---
const int i;
const A a;
---

Think about these two lines. If this is a C++ code, you can't say much  
about their constness.
But if this is a D code, you can say many things about each line and go  
even further and say their constness is exactly same!
What i am getting at is that if we have this affinity between types and  
constness always a first class attribute why don't we go even further and  
drop the signatures all together and make constness accessible to every  
single D code written. Walter and Steve are talking about the contract  
feature we give to const signature, i am not saying it is wrong or it has  
lesser importance than they claim. I am just questioning if this what CS  
should be.