Purity, @safety, etc., in generic code

[deadalnix]

On Wednesday, 20 February 2013 at 13:42:48 UTC, Steven 
Schveighoffer wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 01:00:00 -0500, deadalnix 
> <deadalnix at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> As discussed previously, I really wonder hy a const and non 
>> const version of a function can exists in a first place. What 
>> problem does it solve that isn't better solved by inout ?
>
> const(T) and T are different types.  Saying you can overload on 
> types, unless they just vary by const is a special case that I 
> don't think is worth adding.
>

Explain me how the hell you overload on implicit parameter types ?