On Monday, 29 December 2014 at 20:26:27 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On 12/29/14 2:50 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 12/29/2014 5:53 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On 12/28/14 4:33 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
inout is not transitive, so a ref on the container doesn't
apply to a
ref on the contents if there's another level of indirection
in there.
I'm not sure what you mean by this, but inout as a type
modifier is
definitely
transitive.
As a type modifier, yes, it is transitive. As transferring
lifetime to
the return value, it is not.
I strongly suggest not to use inout to mean this. This idea
would be a disaster.
-Steve
On the other hand, inout IS a disaster, so why not ?
