const by default.

[kris]

Walter Bright wrote:
> kris wrote:
> 
>> Er, that's great, but does it provide for const return-values?
> 
> 
> No, it does not.

Well, that's what's actually needed to tighten up the contractual 
agreement between callee and caller. The 'inbound' cases /could/ be 
handled purely via aggregates, given an immutable return-type. As such, 
the latter would appear to be the base case. It would be nice to see the 
'in' support, but it won't add any additional strength to the language.

> 
>> You see, the above can be handled adequately via either struct or 
>> class /right now/ ~ but their immutablity can quickly unravel when, 
>> for example, exposing content via toString() or whatever. And please 
>> don't suggest returning a .dup of the content instead.
> 
> 
> I've argued against the .dup method many times <g>.

Just a friendly reminder <g>