On 09/05/2012 01:50 AM, bearophile wrote:
Jonathan M Davis:
That's part of why I keep saying not to use in whenever it comes up.
scope is
very broken, so in is very broken. And honestly, given how often
arrays are
used in structs, I suspect that it's not at all uncommon for in to be
used incorrectly.
The situation with "in"/"scope" is worse than just deprecated stuff like
"delete" or "typedef". I know those things are going away, so I don't
use them, and this avoids the problem.
I believe that the only case that
has _any_ protection at all with scope right now is delegates, which
almost never should be const.
Do you mean code like this? What's bad about this?
My delegate arguments
/function pointer arguments are usually const.
void foo(const int delegate(int) dg) {}
void main() {
foo((int x) => x);
}
Bye,
bearophile
Similar code is the main reason for the hole in the const system.
Some people want that fixed, ergo it might break.
