On 1/8/15 4:04 PM, Meta wrote:
On Monday, 5 January 2015 at 19:21:38 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On 1/5/15 10:05 AM, Meta wrote:
IMO, inout (and const/immutable to a degree) is a failure for use with
class/struct methods. This became clear to me when trying to use it for
the toString implementation of Nullable.
You'd have to be more specific for me to understand your point. inout
was specifically designed for one-implementation accessors for members
of classes/structs.
-Steve
I cannot remember what the exact issue is now as it was awhile ago, but
it had to do with a creating inout/const/immutable Nullables. When doing
something such as `Nullable!TestStruct ts; writeln(ts)`, the check
inside Nullable.get is triggered instead of calling toString, because
toString is not marked as inout/const/immutable. The only solution seems
to have a separate version of toString for inout, const, and immutable.
It seems that pretty much defeats the point of having inout in the first
place.
That sounds like the delegate issue. If you are not dealing with
delegates, then it works well.
Working with inout delegates gets tricky, because it's impossible to
refer to inout the type constructor as a parameter to a function without
the compiler thinking this is a new invocation of inout.
Timon Gehr had ideas on how to fix it, but I don't think anything ever
came of it.
-Steve
