I closed a very old bug!

[12345swordy]

On Wednesday, 17 January 2018 at 10:36:44 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 17, 2018 09:32:30 Simen Kjærås via 
> Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 16 January 2018 at 22:01:43 UTC, Mark wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, 16 January 2018 at 19:45:06 UTC, Andrei
>> >
>> > Alexandrescu wrote:
>> >> https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=255
>> >>
>> >> I think it would be great to reduce the median age of open 
>> >> issues, and the median longevity of closed issues. I'm in 
>> >> talks with Sebastian about publishing such metrics. One 
>> >> obvious way to improve that is to look at old bugs - I 
>> >> suspect many are simple or have been fixed already.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Andrei
>> >
>> > What about #5337 [1] ? It's the oldest Phobos bug in 
>> > Bugzilla, from 2010. It seems to be a proposal for 
>> > tail-const support for Phobos ranges, accompanied by an 
>> > implementation. Should something be done about that? I never 
>> > felt the need for tail-const in the language.
>> >
>> > [1] https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5377
>>
>> As the person who filed that bug, I say close it. It was filed 
>> in response to clamor in the newsgroup about how D was 
>> unusable without tail const - an assertion that has proven 
>> baseless.
>
> D is quite useable without tail-const, but without it, ranges 
> and const can't be used together. The solution that most of us 
> have taken is basically to give up on const. Having tail-const 
> would be better, but implementing it without language support 
> is a royal pain and not the sort of thing that most of us are 
> going to bother with. It's just easier to give up on const. It 
> would be a _lot_ nicer if we could figure out how to cleanly 
> add tail-const to the language.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

Which you need to write a DIP in order to do it.