On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 23:21:49 -0500, Michel Fortin
<michel.for...@michelf.com> wrote:
On 2009-12-15 23:02:36 -0500, "Steven Schveighoffer"
<schvei...@yahoo.com> said:
Third, and this is kind of a nitpick, inout functions should *require*
inout in the return type, otherwise, there's no point, the qualifier
could just be const :) So your example is technically invalid.
Should it? I think it'd be better to allow it anyway for generic
programming... or at least allow inout(void) as the return type.
That's a very good point. My preference would then be to say that it's
fine to allow not having inout in the return type for the sake of generic
programming. Seems similar to allowing returning the result of a void
function inside a void function.
-Steve
