I vote language complexity in the form of hygienic macros. /me slinks away
On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 1:25 AM, John McCall via swift-evolution < swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > > On Jun 9, 2017, at 2:42 PM, Gor Gyolchanyan via swift-evolution < > swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > > > My answer to `inout` is to promote it to a full-fledged "storage class" > (in C terminology) and allow normal variables to be `inout`. > > This would immediately solve the problems with `inout` being a magical > thing in functions, as well as a convenient way of storing "references" (in > C++ terminology) to potentially huge inout expressions, not to mention > returning an inout from a function, effectively spreading the getter-setter > awesomeness to everything else besides properties and subscripts. > > C++ implements this idea by being utterly unsafe; Rust implements it by > introducing entire new dimensions of language complexity. Are you > proposing one of these in particular, or do you have your own concept? > > John. > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > swift-evolution@swift.org > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution