2011/12/13 Timon Gehr <[email protected]>: > On 12/13/2011 09:41 AM, kenji hara wrote: [snip] >> >> 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.
Maybe it is an enhancement filed as 6809. >> - 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. > > I think we should indeed drop the restrictions, because they complicate the > language for little gain. Indeed. Kenji Hara
