On Wednesday, 23 January 2013 at 10:43:24 UTC, simendsjo wrote:
On Wednesday, 23 January 2013 at 10:30:08 UTC, Namespace wrote:But AFAIK scope isn't fully implemented as storage class, or am I wrong?I think you are right. And I think it's the reason using 'in' parameters are discouraged.
I remember Kenji telling "in" currently is synonym for "const", not "const scope" as is often told.
