I am surprised to hear that redundant storage classes are
considered an error by dmd :) Makes no sense for me, typical
"generic code gen" use case story.
http://dpaste.1azy.net/3ef7a084
Sorry then, I have misunderstood you then. I do want both
"scope ref" and "const scope ref" too, but I was thinking that
simple easy-to-use shortcut (in) should match most idiomatic
and safe use case, and that should be "scope const ref". With
an additional benefit of being able to replace values with refs
transparently due to storage class/qualifier restrictions.
I don't have strong opinion here, it is just an idea that came
to my mind today and felt tempting ;)
I like it also but was afraid that it could break user code. 'in
ref' is allowed since 2.060 and many users use 'in' because it is
shorter than 'const' and feels like the opposite of 'out'. :/
Otherwise that would be a good idea. Let's hear what Kenji says.