Scope and with

[mist]

On Wednesday, 23 January 2013 at 10:43:24 UTC, simendsjo wrote:
> On Wednesday, 23 January 2013 at 10:30:08 UTC, Namespace wrote:
>> But AFAIK scope isn't fully implemented as storage class, or 
>> am I wrong?
>
> I think you are right. And I think it's the reason using 'in' 
> parameters are discouraged.

I remember Kenji telling "in" currently is synonym for "const", 
not "const scope" as is often told.