Persistent list

[Observer via Digitalmars-d]

On Saturday, 14 November 2015 at 16:27:17 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> All trouble comes from trying to use physical immutable as 
> logical one while still pretending it gives physical 
> guarantees. Even if existing immutability is not widely 
> applicable, I'd prefer to have narrow applicability over wide 
> false confidence. Right now I know for sure that if I can use 
> immutable data without any thread locking and it is not 
> possible to screw it up. It is rarely important, but when it 
> is, it is priceless.

I can't say I'm following this discussion in great detail, but
one thing strikes me.  "const"-ness and "immutable"-ility are
at some abstract level flavors of value stability.  And that
suggests to me that perhaps we should not be looking so much
for backdoors as for new terms, leaving the old terms alone.
Perhaps a given old keyword won't work well with RC; so be it.
Perhaps a new keyword such as "stable" could be used to describe
a storage category where the payload fields are unchanging but
any metadata fields are potentially mutable.  Then perhaps const
could mean physically immutable, while stable means logically
immutable.  Or something like that.