const, final, scope function parameters

[janderson]

Walter Bright wrote:
> It looks like making "const final scope" be the default for function 
> parameters is going to be infeasible. The troubles are that:
> 
> 1) It seems to knock a lot of people for a loop, who will be assuming 
> that an undecorated name would be like an undecorated name for a local 
> or global variable.

I don't disagree here.

> 
> 2) Having to turn off one of the const, final, or scope, introduces the 
> need for some sort of "not" keyword, like mutable, !const, !final, etc. 
> It comes off looking bizarre.

On this point, couldn't it be something like, if you define const, final 
or scope then the default "const final scope" is removed?

[snip]