On 05/31/2013 04:45 PM, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
> And again, sorry if I'm being dumb, but is the proposed inout syntax
> intended to fix this problem or some other problem?
Think of 'inout' as a placeholder for one of the following three:
- const
- immutable
- (no const, nor immutable)
inout is deduced at call time and all of the inouts inside a function
and even the return type become the qualifier of the argument:
inout(int)[] firstHalf(inout(int)[] a)
{
return a[0..$/2];
}
void main()
{
int[] m;
const(int)[] c;
immutable(int)[] i;
assert(is (typeof(firstHalf(m)) == int[]));
assert(is (typeof(firstHalf(c)) == const(int)[]));
assert(is (typeof(firstHalf(i)) == immutable(int)[]));
}
That is a very handy feature for exactly situations like the above.
> why did DConf *this year* have a talk on this issue?!
The previous DConf was in 2007. It will be a yearly event from now on.
Ali
