preparing for const, final, and invariant

[Manuel König]

Bill Baxter wrote:
> Manuel König wrote:
>> I second this.
>>
>> Doing it this way 'in' also keeps its expressive character of saying 
>> "Hey, I am only the input and not that bunch of scope const final!", 
>> which especially makes sense when compared to 'out' in terms of data 
>> flow. And dismissing all of 'scope const final' just requires you to 
>> declare your params as 'in', which will rarely be the case.
> 
> Does nobody quote any more?  What are you seconding?
> 
> --bb

I'm seconding just the whole proposal. Quoting something didn't came to 
my because I'm not sticking to something in particular, but the whole 
thing :P

Anyhow, are there thoughts, comments by anyone who does/does not like 
the behaviour of omitting 'in' being 'scope const final'? Otherwise the 
'in' behaviour proposed by Regan should really be part of the language, 
IMHO.

greetings,
manuel