On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 16:57:44 -0800, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote: > What about besides C++ integration? 'cos I remember some people were > complaining that a library solution is bad, but I've forgotten what the > reasons were.
The first problem mentioned was C++ integration, and the minimal thing required to make that work in a nice way is to supply a @cppconst attribute with no semantics that is used only to alter name mangling. It's the least complex solution available. I did get tripped up not too long ago on a lack of a `final` storage class in the context of members. It is sometimes useful. There's also a question of whether we want the same thing for C++ name mangling as for preventing reassignment. It might be clearer to have both final and @cppconst.