On Monday, 29 December 2014 at 19:54:33 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On 12/29/14 2:04 PM, Dicebot wrote:
On Monday, 29 December 2014 at 19:00:06 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
I tend to agree. You seem to have shown that reusing inout
for scope
information becomes confusing. -- Andrei
What is the problem with using inout exactly as it is now (==
both for
argument and return type) but defining it to propagate aliasing
information as it is decribed in DIP25?
It can, and I don't have a problem for that.
But I think disallowing:
ref T foo(T)(ref T t) { return t;}
Is no good.
It is to be disallowed only in @safe code, right?
The DIP seems to be indicating inout can have another use that
has nothing to do with const, but I'm not exactly sure.
I see its potential as a generic wildcard for
attribute/qualifier propagation through the functions.
