On 4/15/16 4:03 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 04/15/2016 03:44 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I assure you, these limitations were self-imposed. I insisted on them,
without realizing that they would cause problems with generic code. I
thought they would be good "lint" detection.
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3748
Problem is we could have other problems once we fix those. As you just
showed, it has already happened.
If you look at the core of what inout actually is (a type modifier
placeholder), we can simplify how to think about it, and how to
implement it. These "requirements" were just extra helpful things that
would flag valid, but (naively assumed) pointless code. Turns out,
templates generate lots of pointless code (that is typically optimized
away in the type system or the optimizer).
I hope to make this clear in my talk at dconf.
We should really do away with the cowboy style of designing language,
which sadly Walter and I have been guilty of too often in the past. The
slow but sure accretion of complexity of inout is a textbook example of
where that leads.
I actually agree, someone with as little experience as I had should not
have been listened to when making such a feature :)
If I could do it over again, I would still want this feature, but
obviously, we could make sane simple rules for it. They are actually
quite easy to understand.
-Steve
