const debacle

[Jarrod]

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 19:08:58 -0400, Christopher Wright wrote:
 
> I just want data that I can mutate and functions that can promise not to
> mutate them.

That's what I meant by redefining 'in'


> Originally, at the start of this const foray, everyone clamored for all
> function arguments being immutable by default. If we had that, I'm
> absolutely certain that this issue would have been solved several
> revisions ago.

Seconded.