preparing for const, final, and invariant

[Bill Baxter]

Manuel König wrote:
> I second this.
> 
> Doing it this way 'in' also keeps its expressive character of saying 
> "Hey, I am only the input and not that bunch of scope const final!", 
> which especially makes sense when compared to 'out' in terms of data 
> flow. And dismissing all of 'scope const final' just requires you to 
> declare your params as 'in', which will rarely be the case.

Does nobody quote any more?  What are you seconding?

--bb