• =?UTF-8?B?QWxpIMOHZWhyZWxp?= (4/4) May 02 2015 We know that 'in' is "equivalent to const scope":
• Jakob Ovrum (10/14) May 03 2015 Of course, there's no concept of non-transitive const in D:
• Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-learn (6/9) May 03 2015 Of course. in is identical to const scope. It doesn't introduce anything

=?UTF-8?B?QWxpIMOHZWhyZWxp?= <acehreli yahoo.com> writes:

We know that 'in' is "equivalent to const scope":

   http://dlang.org/function.html#parameters

So, the constness of 'in' is transitive as well, right?

Ali

"Jakob Ovrum" <jakobovrum gmail.com> writes:

On Sunday, 3 May 2015 at 05:20:34 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
 We know that 'in' is "equivalent to const scope":

   http://dlang.org/function.html#parameters

 So, the constness of 'in' is transitive as well, right?

 Ali

Of course, there's no concept of non-transitive const in D:

struct S
{
     char[] str;
}

void foo(in S s)
{
     pragma(msg, typeof(s.str)); // const(char[])
}

Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-learn writes:

On Saturday, May 02, 2015 22:20:33 Ali Çehreli via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
 We know that 'in' is "equivalent to const scope":

    http://dlang.org/function.html#parameters

 So, the constness of 'in' is transitive as well, right?

Of course. in is identical to const scope. It doesn't introduce anything
new. It's basically just an alias.

And I really wish that folks would stop using it, since it implies scope,
and scope hasn't been properly implemented or even designed out yet...

- Jonathan M Davis