const

Walter Bright newshound1 at digitalmars.com
Fri Mar 28 18:24:56 PDT 2008


Jason House wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
>> 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)

That too, but the semantics of it aren't implemented yet and I'm not 
sure that's the right thing to do.



More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list