On paper D's concepts of transitivity relating to shared,
const and immutable sound good. However numerous threads
on this ng relating to the same show that there are serious
semantic shortcomings when it comes to using these D idioms
in angst.  So much so are the problems that one ends up not
wanting to use these D features at all.

Surely it would be a good thing to promote D's transitivity
of shared, const and immutable in its manifesto, but how
can this possible done when we all know the semantics of the
same are broken by syntactic limitations?  (Well, at least that
is my analysis.)

Cheers
Justin Johansson

Justin Johansson wrote:
> Surely it would be a good thing to promote D's transitivity
> of shared, const and immutable in its manifesto, but how
> can this possible done when we all know the semantics of the
> same are broken by syntactic limitations?  (Well, at least that
> is my analysis.)

The manifesto is a statement of guiding principles and goals, not of solutions. It gives us something to compare with the reality of the implementation, and shows where things need improvement.