Andrei Alexandrescu, el 15 de diciembre a las 19:02 me escribiste: > Time has come to make a decision on implementing Steven > Schveighoffer's proposal: > > http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs/DIP2 > > It's been in the back of my mind for a while now, I don't find a > fault with it, it solves a very unpleasant problem that would > seriously mar qualifiers, and although it doesn't solve 100% of the > potential cases, it does solve a good fraction of them. I am > confident that we can require body duplication for the remaining > stragglers with a straight face. > > My main concern is allowing shared to participate to the inout > transportation. I am tempted to allow it, but shared is constrained > much more severely than the other two. > > To avoid problems with the existing uses of inout (which is an old > synonym for ref), the language requires that you redundantly use > inout in the return type as well. We could eliminate that in D3. > > Any thoughts would be appreciated.
Looks like inout won: http://www.dsource.org/projects/phobos/changeset/1389 Doesn't look like a very intuitive name though (another enum? :). -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Es más probable que el tomate sea perita, a que la pera tomatito. -- Peperino Pómoro