bearophile Wrote:
<snip>
> it prints: "redundant storage class in". So const and "in" seem really the
> same thing. But then what does it mean "immutable in"? I guess it just means
> transitive-immutable.
>
> "immutable out" and "const out" are thankfully disallowed. So I guess "in" is
> now deprecated, it's just an alias of "const. But this idea seems wrong
> because "in ref" is disalloed but "const ref" is allowed, so they aren't just
> an alias of each other.
>
> 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
>
<snip>
>From the D2.0/Language/Functions page, under Function Parameters:
"The in storage class is equivalent to const scope."
That's why the "const in" combination doesn't work.
Paul
"I can't tell a lie -- not even when I hear one."
John Kendrik Bangs, A House-Boat on the Styx.
