On Wednesday, 29 January 2014 at 14:34:54 UTC, Cooler wrote:
Here is ambiguity.
void fun3(int[] x){ x ~= 5; ... }
auto a = new int[10];
fun3(a); // Here content of "a" may be changed or may be not
changed. Depends on the buffer size that system will allocate
for "a" array.
You use very subjective meaning for "ambiguity", one that is
never normally used in programming language context. Normally
term "ambiguity" is applied only when _compiler_ can't reliably
decide meaning of the code snippet and needs to resort to special
casing.
You are correct in notion that you can't make any reasonable
judgement yourself about content of a after `fun3` call but same
applies to `fun2` - it can be or not be modified. It is expected
- to express all semantics of function body in function signature
one would have needed to make it of comparable length and
complexity.
In practice you need always to assume the worst - everything is
modified and nothing can be trusted unless explicitly qualified
other way around.
