Don Wrote: > Jonathan M Davis wrote: > > On Thursday, December 02, 2010 01:18:31 Don wrote: > >> Walter Bright wrote: > >>> spir wrote: > >>>> What would be the consequences if D had no const, only immutable > >>>> (that, IIUC, removes the latter non-guarantee)? > >>> You'd have to write most every function twice, once to take immutable > >>> args and again for mutable ones. > >> Doesn't 'inout' do almost the same thing? > >> The only difference I can see between const and inout, is that inout > >> tells which parameters could be aliased with the return value. > > > > Except that doesn't inout actually produce multiple versions of the > > function, > > No. My understanding is that the constness of the return value is > determined at the call site, but otherwise, it's as if all 'inout' > parameters were const.
Inside a function, inout(T) should be considered a subtype of const(T). Nothing should be convertible to inout.
