Windows experience is atrocious

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On 7/31/23 11:47 AM, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
> On Monday, 31 July 2023 at 14:43:20 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> 
>> And chances are *really* good that `in` means `ref` anyway. Cases 
>> where `in` might not use `ref` are something like `int`, or `byte`. 
>> Are there good use cases for accepting integers via const reference?
>>
> 
> And if you really want to be explicit, can't you just avoid 'in' and go 
> for the ref / const / scope / etc low-level specification?
> 
> (caveat, I admit sometime to be lost in all that specs ... dip1000 + 
> @live destroyed a lot of my neurones)
> 

The point is that there is code that already uses `in ref` to mean `ref 
const scope`, and we don't want to have to change it (i.e. old code that 
nobody maintains).

For those purposes, switching to just `in` is the same semantically.

But there *might* be an ABI difference. And as I'm writing this I'm 
realizing, it doesn't matter. Any code that uses `in` will break if you 
want to compile against an old binary, because `in` used to mean `const 
scope`, and now it will mean `const scope ref`.

So the point of ABI compatibility is really moot.

-Steve