Re: "in" no longer "scope" since 2.079.0?

2018-03-28 Thread Kagamin via Digitalmars-d-learn
On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 at 09:58:11 UTC, bauss wrote: So now "in" is basically just an alias and serves no real purpose or is there a plan to eventually make "in" mean something other than just "const"? At this point it's the spec that serves no real purpose, sometimes in is scope,

Re: "in" no longer "scope" since 2.079.0?

2018-03-27 Thread Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-learn
On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 16:16:15 Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote: > On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 at 09:27:07 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > > it was deemed too dangerous to have in suddenly really mean > > both scope and const, because it would potentially break a lot > > of code. > >

Re: "in" no longer "scope" since 2.079.0?

2018-03-27 Thread Schrom, Brian T via Digitalmars-d-learn
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 03:27:07AM -0600, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote: > > Because scope has mostly done nothing (it only affected delegates), in has > effectively been const without scope for its entire existence in D2 in spite > of the fact that it was supposed to be the

Re: "in" no longer "scope" since 2.079.0?

2018-03-27 Thread H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d-learn
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 04:16:15PM +, Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote: > On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 at 09:27:07 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > > it was deemed too dangerous to have in suddenly really mean both > > scope and const, because it would potentially break a lot of code. >

Re: "in" no longer "scope" since 2.079.0?

2018-03-27 Thread Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d-learn
On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 at 09:27:07 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: it was deemed too dangerous to have in suddenly really mean both scope and const, because it would potentially break a lot of code. To be frank, this pisses me off to a ridiculous extent because if it "breaks" at all... THAT

Re: "in" no longer "scope" since 2.079.0?

2018-03-27 Thread Seb via Digitalmars-d-learn
On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 at 11:24:01 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 09:58:11 bauss via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote: On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 at 09:27:07 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > [...] So now "in" is basically just an alias and serves no real purpose or is there

Re: "in" no longer "scope" since 2.079.0?

2018-03-27 Thread bauss via Digitalmars-d-learn
On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 at 11:24:01 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 09:58:11 bauss via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote: On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 at 09:27:07 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 09:15:43 Boris-Barboris via > > Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:

Re: "in" no longer "scope" since 2.079.0?

2018-03-27 Thread Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-learn
On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 09:58:11 bauss via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote: > On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 at 09:27:07 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > > On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 09:15:43 Boris-Barboris via > > > > Digitalmars-d-learn wrote: > >> Hello! Can someone point me to the changelong entry or

Re: "in" no longer "scope" since 2.079.0?

2018-03-27 Thread bauss via Digitalmars-d-learn
On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 at 09:27:07 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 09:15:43 Boris-Barboris via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote: Hello! Can someone point me to the changelong entry or maybe a pull request, wich changed the "in" from "scope const" to "const"? I thought the

Re: "in" no longer "scope" since 2.079.0?

2018-03-27 Thread Boris-Barboris via Digitalmars-d-learn
On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 at 09:27:07 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 09:15:43 Boris-Barboris via Now that DIP 1000 is being implemented, and scope is actually going to do something for more than just delegates, it was deemed too dangerous to have in suddenly really

Re: "in" no longer "scope" since 2.079.0?

2018-03-27 Thread Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-learn
On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 09:15:43 Boris-Barboris via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote: > Hello! Can someone point me to the changelong entry or maybe a > pull request, wich changed the "in" from "scope const" to > "const"? I thought the previous matter of things was pretty > natural, and current "in"

"in" no longer "scope" since 2.079.0?

2018-03-27 Thread Boris-Barboris via Digitalmars-d-learn
Hello! Can someone point me to the changelong entry or maybe a pull request, wich changed the "in" from "scope const" to "const"? I thought the previous matter of things was pretty natural, and current "in" is now redundant. Would be glad to read up on this design decision.