> Well use of auto can be ambiguous here I think. I'm not sure, frankly. We should consult with Walter and co. because they have a better idea about syntax readability.
> What about auto const ref ? That will force you to have both auto const and auto ref at the same time. On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 5:48 PM, deadalnix <[email protected]> wrote: > Le 08/11/2011 14:36, Gor Gyolchanyan a écrit : >> >> 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). >> > > Well use of auto can be ambiguous here I think. > > What about auto const ref ? >
