On Monday, May 29, 2017 20:00:12 Stanislav Blinov via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Monday, 29 May 2017 at 19:14:54 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > > On Monday, May 29, 2017 17:19:27 Stanislav Blinov via > > > > Digitalmars-d wrote: > >> `in` is `const scope` > > > > Walter recently changed is that in is now just const, because > > scope was not properly implemented previously, and folks were > > using in all over the place, so the odds of code breaking when > > scope was properly implemented were high. > > > > - Jonathan M Davis > > Huh, I missed that... peculiar change. :\ So now it would break > for people who did use `in` properly?
Since scope was never properly defined for anything other than delegates, it's questionable that _anyone_ who used it used it properly. But regardless, nothing will break because of scope-related stuff unless you use the -dip1000 switch, which would then require scope in a number of places that it wasn't before (including on local variables in a number of cases IIRC), making it so that even if in had stayed const scope, pretty much regardless of how you used it, code would break (which is going to make life fun when when we finally transition from dip 1000 to being optional to being the normal behavior). - Jonathan M Davis
