On 12/13/2011 09:41 AM, kenji hara wrote:
2011/12/13 Steven Schveighoffer<[email protected]>:
Currently, the rules of inout say you cannot put inout on a parameter
without putting it on the return type as well. This makes sense, it gives
the compiler one place to worry about whether implicit casting rules will
properly work.
But Timon Gehr brought up in another thread (started by Merdhad) that we can
separate the resolution of inout from the applicability of the parameters.
Essentially, calling an inout function goes through two phases:
1. determine what inout resolves to
2. try and call the function.
inout rules don't have to change regarding resolving inout's actual value.
In other words, if all inout places are matched as int, immutable, or
inout, then inout resolves to that value. Otherwise inout resolves to
const.
But what's different is (at least in my mind) the function call might not
necessarily succeed even when the resolution is completed.
Take for example:
inout(int)* foo(inout(int)** a, inout(int)* b);
Now, if we call foo like this:
int a;
int b;
int* pa =&a;
foo(&pa,&b);
This means foo is called with (int **, int *). This means inout resolves to
mutable (no qualifier). *NOW* we try calling foo as if it were written:
int *foo(int **a, int *b)
And it can be done. Not only that, but there is nothing bad that could be
happening in foo that should be disallowed by the compiler.
Now let's see what happens were we *could* do something bad:
immutable(int) c;
auto pc =&c;
foo(&pc,&b);
Now, foo is being called with (immutable(int)**, int *). Inout resolves to
const (due to the mix of mutable and immutable). *NOW* we try calling foo
as if it were written:
const(int)* foo(const(int)** a, const(int)* b);
And it *FAILS*. This is because you cannot implicitly convert
immutable(int)** to const(int)** (well, at least it *shouldn't* compile, I'm
not sure if it does currently).
Separating phases is good.
Current implementation does not separate the two phases, and I agree
that has a bug you appears.
And, we need fixing issue 4251 and 5493 to fill the hole of const system.
Today, I've posted a pull for it.
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/558
What this does is allow more possibilities for inout than we currently do.
Because inout is not now tied to returning something, we can create
functions that have inout parameters but no inout return value.
The example we were discussing on the other thread was this:
void foo(ref inout(int)* a, inout(int)* b) { a = b;}
This would compile as long as you call with const(int)* as the first
parameter, or if both parameters matched in constancy (i.e. both were
immutable, both were mutable, or both were inout).
This gives us more cases where you don't have to repeat functions for the
sake of handling different types of constancy, particularly when we have
mutable references 2 levels deep. I can't see anything technically wrong
with this, can anyone else?
The one thing that I think still should be required is if you have inout on
the return value, there *must* be an inout on a parameter. Otherwise, the
compiler has no idea what it should be (since we don't overload on return
type in D).
If this ends up being viable, this is actually easier to explain than the
current rules for inout. We just have to make sure the rules are sound
before doing something like this.
-Steve
Against an inout function that does not return inout type:
- the number of inout parameters should be 2 more?
If we required that, then IFTI would also have to replace inout with
const in case there is only one of them. That potentially introduces
counter-intuitive behaviour.
- at least one parameter should have 'out' or 'ref' storage class as a
*return parameter*?
Not necessarily.
But I'm not sure these restrictions are necessarily required.
Kenji Hara
I think we should indeed drop the restrictions, because they complicate
the language for little gain.
