On 05/30/2017 05:48 AM, Petar Kirov [ZombineDev] wrote:
On Tuesday, 30 May 2017 at 06:13:39 UTC, Stanislav Blinov wrote:
On Tuesday, 30 May 2017 at 02:12:56 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:

That definition currently there is more precise than the definition on that page has been historically...

Apparently, it is not. Do you have a reference to Walter's change regarding `in` becoming just `const`? Because a change like that should get reflected in the spec, otherwise we might just continue to ignore said spec and expect our grievances to be "gracefully" resolved later. What I mean is I'd rather see/make the change reflected there...

Unfortunately, `in` was never implemented as `scope const`.

Why would it need to be `const`? Thanks! -- Andrei

Reply via email to