const

[Jason House]

Janice Caron Wrote:

> On 31/03/2008, Jason House <jason.james.house at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Maybe rov or read.
> 
> Again, "readable" doesn't imply "not writeable". (It is perfectly
> possible for a thing to be both readable and writeable at the same
> time).

That's like saying "in" doesn't imply "not out".  While true, it really isn't what people initially assume.  I like readonly better than read, but we already know walter believes readonly means nobody can write and so isn't an option.  

> Let's just stick with "in". It's /already implemented/ in one of the
> places where it's needed, and let's face it, keywords don't get much
> shorter!

As is the normal problem with picking keywords, you can't find one that everyone universally likes.  Outside of function arguments, I don't like the use of the word "in".  It also seems to assume that in meaning "const scope" is going away.  I'm hoping that's not true, but I guess we'll see...