# Is there are a "const" version in the specification language? **URL:** \ **Category:** I have questions\ **Created:** [May 30, 2020, 2:35pm UTC](https://es.discourse.group/t/is-there-are-a-const-version-in-the-specification-language/345 "2020-05-30T14:35:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![JackWorks](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/es.discourse.group/jackworks/32/260_2.png) [@JackWorks](https://es.discourse.group/u/JackWorks)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2020, 2:35pm UTC](https://es.discourse.group/t/is-there-are-a-const-version-in-the-specification-language/345/1 "2020-05-30T14:35:10Z")
```javascript 1. Let _iterator_ be the **this** value. ``` Is it possible to indicate the spec reader, that the _iterator_ variable will not change in the following algorithm? ```javascript 1. Let const _iterator_ to be the **this** value. ``` Immutable constants can reduce the reading effort. (Also need support from the linter to ban the re-assignment on the const variable, and the spec render to mark it visually different from the `let` which is mutable). ---
**Author:** ![JackWorks](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/es.discourse.group/jackworks/32/260_2.png) [@JackWorks](https://es.discourse.group/u/JackWorks)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2020, 2:35pm UTC](https://es.discourse.group/t/is-there-are-a-const-version-in-the-specification-language/345/2 "2020-05-30T14:35:54Z")
(And I think we're re-inventing JS in the spec language) ---
**Author:** ![bakkot](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/es.discourse.group/bakkot/32/22_2.png) [@bakkot](https://es.discourse.group/u/bakkot)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2020, 4:28pm UTC](https://es.discourse.group/t/is-there-are-a-const-version-in-the-specification-language/345/3 "2020-05-30T16:28:03Z")
Nope. The specification language is intentionally pretty simple.