On 7/2/2017 1:12 AM, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
The idea is to be able to write: string result = foo(true, "bar");
If it is declared as:
inout(char)[] foo(bool condition, inout(char)[] chars);
your specific case will work as expected. Perhaps you meant:
char[] s;
string result = foo(true, s);
which will never work, even if const inout is a type, because the returns in the
function body do NOT determine the return type's inout meaning. Only the type of
the argument supplied to the inout parameter does that.
However, in this case it can be also argued that supporting this specific case
adds it's own complexity. The concept of const(inout(T)) definitely sounds like
one of the harder ones to explain. So I'd probably still opt for simplifying the
conversion hierarchy.
Neither I nor anyone here seems to understand its purpose. The existence of it
is likely a significant contributor to peoples' confusion about inout.
It's my fault as I should have noticed this getting slipped into the compiler.
