1) Such placement based syntax is foreign to D.
I would have to agree that this is a strange way to do things in
any language.
The great "int* a" vs "int *a" debate...
2) It would be special syntax just for class types.
IMO, it would be worth it
3) It's not how C++ rolls.
`const Test test;` and `Test const test;` are equivalent in
C++. You need that '*' in C++, too, to make a distinction
between reference and data.
I'm a little confused. I was comparing a C++ pointer-to-class to
a D reference, which are basically the same under the hood. I
wasn't trying to bring up C++ value types. I'm not sure how
they're relevant to the argument.
4) Rebindable works reasonably well, as far as I know.
The verbosity and blatant disregard for DRY makes me CRY.
See what I did there.. ;)
Anyways, IMO, D could benefit from having "tailconst" but I think
it's a moot point.
