Scope and with

[simendsjo]

On Wednesday, 23 January 2013 at 13:43:58 UTC, mist wrote:
> 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.

Stuff like this should really be in the documentation.. The docs 
says "in" is equivalent to "const scope", but doesn't mention 
this is not yet implemented and is just "const" for now..