On 05/30/2017 12:19 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 05/30/2017 12:11 PM, Stanislav Blinov wrote:
On Tuesday, 30 May 2017 at 15:59:04 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 05/30/2017 05:48 AM, Petar Kirov [ZombineDev] wrote:
On Tuesday, 30 May 2017 at 06:13:39 UTC, Stanislav Blinov wrote:
On Tuesday, 30 May 2017 at 02:12:56 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
That definition currently there is more precise than the
definition on that page has been historically...
Apparently, it is not. Do you have a reference to Walter's change
regarding `in` becoming just `const`? ...
Unfortunately, `in` was never implemented as `scope const`.
Why would it need to be `const`? Thanks! -- Andrei
What do you mean?
I think `scope` would be enough. People should still be able to modify
the value. -- Andrei
Oh, I'm in a different movie - thought it's the associative array "in".
Sorry! -- Andrei
