Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > On 11/9/11 9:58 AM, Nick Treleaven wrote: >> On 09/11/2011 15:29, deadalnix wrote: >>> inout isn't reminding in any way of its functionnality. It is more >>> readable than ##, for sure, but way less than any word from >>> const/immutable lexical field. >> >> inout means transfer the input qualifier to the output, it is >> descriptive enough. > > Thank you. I was itching to write that but was hoping somebody else would. > > Andrei
it would be a good solution, if in and out didn't exists. I was _very_ confused, when I first saw inout and thougth it would be a combination of in and out. So I think it deserves a prominent place in the documentation next to in and out.
