I also think that we should not change current `in` meaning. It is already used as the shorthand of `const` widely, and it has value semantics (make a copy of given argument). That's the major motivation to add new syntax "scope ref" and "in ref".
Kenji Hara 2013/4/5 Namespace <rswhi...@googlemail.com> > 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 <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. >