On Saturday, 13 September 2014 at 18:36:53 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 09/13/2014 07:48 PM, Kagamin wrote:
On Saturday, 13 September 2014 at 16:51:09 UTC, Timon Gehr
wrote:
s.bar((int* p){ ++*p; });
Huh? inout is for functions, which don't modify their
arguments.
With Jakob's code working, this would not be warranted.
Huh? See rationale in
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1961
If inout should still guarantee non-modification in the future,
then nested inout functions will need to introduce their own
inout context (i.e. the inout qualifier of the nested function
should be incompatible with the inout qualifier of the
enclosing function.) I assume this is a major PITA to implement
in DMD, and it also leads to growing pains that are hard to
counter without enhancing the syntax, hence the current
semantics.
I think, it can be more or less simple without syntax
enhancements, see the description of how it can be implemented.
In any case, why is it important that inout functions are
guaranteed not to change their arguments, even if they are
mutable and the mutation is from within a delegate that was
passed to such functions for this purpose?
The same way const is important: it makes code easier to reason
about.
