how about '&' : void fun(int & x);
which is same as C++ syntax, hence familiar. I thought someone had proposed that a few weeks ago On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Jonathan M Davis <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tuesday, March 26, 2013 17:22:29 Namespace wrote: >> On Tuesday, 26 March 2013 at 11:41:13 UTC, Namespace wrote: >> > I wonder, if someone has already thought about "immutable ref". >> > I can not imagine that many use it, so it wouldn't break (much) >> > code. >> >> immutable ref works (for me) very well. Are there any pitfalls >> that I can not see? > > That there's no immutability involved? That would be an incredibly misleading > choice. Not to mention, you can probably have a perfectly valid immutable ref > right now if you want to pass a an immutable variable by ref, and using > immutable ref for this would change its semantics. We probably just need an > @something attribute with a good name. > > - Jonathan M Davis
