I agree with _inout_ being a bad choice. I'd rather use something involving _auto_, because this kind of use of _auto_ is already employed in _auto ref_ parameters and is visually unambiguous. Probably _auto const_ would do the trick.
The actual _inout_ keyword could be flagged as deprecated and removed during the next breaking change in D (along with all other wonderful breaking changes that were proposed). On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 5:08 PM, deadalnix <[email protected]> wrote: > Le 08/11/2011 02:08, Walter Bright a écrit : >> >> http://drdobbs.com/blogs/cpp/231902461 >> >> Anyone want to do the reddit honors? > > Great article. The only point I would raise is the choice of inout as a > keyword for this. > > This make no sens whatsoever. Here is why : > - inout did exist in D1 and is different. > - in and out qualifier already exists and have nothing to do with inout. > - in and out are used for contracts and have nothing to do with inout. > - the inout term has nothing to do with const/immutable/mutable. This is in > a totally different lexical field. > > Another keyword should be choosen. vconst, as suggested here : > http://prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs/DIP2 is way more > appropriate. > > On external details, but still important, I face the need of inout few days > ago and did knew about it. The documentation on const/immutable ( > http://www.d-programming-language.org/const3.html ) doesn't mention it. The > page on fucntion mention it, but it would be nice to have at least a link on > the const/immutable page. >
