http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=11188
--- Comment #3 from hst...@quickfur.ath.cx 2013-10-10 11:36:03 PDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > I'll give that a go and if it works, send a patch to Phobos. Thanks for the > thought. Incidentally, shouldn't "in" be sufficient there for the input? In this case, you need inout, because you want to propagate the incoming qualifiers to the output: if x>=0, then you're returning x again, so the return type needs to carry whatever qualifiers x had on entering the function. Everything implicitly converts to const, of course, but it would suck if you returned const and the caller passed in unqual, and now after calling abs he can't modify the BigInt anymore! -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
