On Wed, 10 Jun 2015 04:52:46 -0400, kink <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
I know what `in` currently means. Your proposed `in ref T` syntax is imo not much better than C++ `const T&`, so I'd prefer a simple and convenient `in T`. Semantics would be identical to your `in ref` with the additional optimization for small POD types. And for beginners, one could simply describe it as: 'Use the in keyword for a parameter if you're not going to mutate it. Don't rely on its identity as the argument may be passed by value or reference, whatever seems more efficient for the compiler and the target platform.'
+1 Bit
