bearophile Wrote:
> Many thanks Steven Schveighoffer for the good explanations. Now I think I
> have understood what's one of the purposes of const. const arguments of a
> function just states that you aren't going to change the data inside a
> function/method, more or less like in C++, but in a transitive way.
>
<snip>
> But it doesn't work, so maybe in and const are the same thing now. Is "in"
> going to be removed then? Or maybe it's better to remove const and keep just
> a transitive "in". And I have seen "immutable ref" too is allowed, I guess
> it's mostly for performance reasons. Maybe "immutable in" is just for show,
> this works:
>
> So the available ones are ("in" not listed to keep a bit of my sanity):
> immutable type
> const type
> out type
> immutable ref type
> const ref type
> type
> type*
> type**
> etc
>
On the language/functions page:
"The in storage class is equivalent to const scope."
I hope that clears everything up for you! :-)
Paul
