# Why \`\*const T\` and not \`\*T\`?

**URL:** <https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/why-const-t-and-not-t/7749>\
**Category:** language design\
**Created:** [June 18, 2018, 12:02pm UTC](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/why-const-t-and-not-t/7749 "2018-06-18T12:02:23Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 18

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Ixrec](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/internals.rust-lang.org/ixrec/32/6754_2.png) [@Ixrec](https://internals.rust-lang.org/u/Ixrec)\
**Post date:** [July 1, 2018, 8:42pm UTC](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/why-const-t-and-not-t/7749/18 "2018-07-01T20:42:45Z")

</div>

Are there any known examples of minor, _uncontroversial_ language “warts” that would go in such a repo?

All the minor language changes I’m personally aware of are either highly controversial (or at least, high relative to the small potential benefits, like the `:` vs `=` in structs thing or this `*const T` thing) or don’t even need editions and can just go through an ordinary warning cycle and then get deprecated. [https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/30459](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/30459) being a good example. We _could_ use an edition to just wipe out all deprecated items, but since the compiler has to continue supporting all those items for older editions anyway, I assume there’s no point in doing that.

---

_[View the full topic](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/why-const-t-and-not-t/7749)._