On 2009-12-15 23:04:38 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> said:
Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2009-12-15 22:41:19 -0500, "Steven Schveighoffer"
<schvei...@yahoo.com> said:
2. the choice of inout is not my first choice, I'd prefer a new
keyword. The inout compromise was meant to subvert the "we already
have too many keywords" argument (it was Janice's idea). If there are
no objections, I prefer what the DIP proposed, vconst. All I'm saying
is, reusing inout is *not* a very important part of the proposal.
Seconded. In fact, we could just remove inout from the keyword list if
we care about not augmenting the number of keywords.
Regardless of legacy, I personally find "inout" more suggestive - the
qualifier goes from input to output. vconst doesn't quite tell me
anything. I don't even know what "v" stands for.
autoconst?
It goes in the same vein as "auto ref" Walter just introduced to do
mostly the same thing with ref (but limited to function templates).
--
Michel Fortin
michel.for...@michelf.com
http://michelf.com/
