const

[Jason House]

Walter Bright wrote:

> Denton Cockburn wrote:
>> I've been trying to figure out the difference for a while now.
>> I started 2 threads on D newsgroups...neither of which provided a
>> reasonable response.  I still would like to see a good explanation of why
>> we have 2 keywords that do the exact same thing (esp. when one has no
>> other purpose - in).
> 
> It's a good question. The only value 'in' has is it's shorter.

I thought in was "const scope".  I interpret that to mean that in is
stronger than const.  It means that the data is not guaranteed to be
excessible beyond the function call.  I guess with a garbage collected
system that makes less sense.  Certainly invariant scope makes more sense
to me (guarantee invariance only over the duration of the function call)