On 19/02/2012 15:31, Timon Gehr wrote: <snip excessive quote> <snip>
a) int opApply(inout int delegate(ref inout(T)) dg) inout; b) int opApply(constancy K)(int delegate(constancy L)(ref L(T)) dg) K;
???
Actually affecting the constancy of the delegate itself is not an useful operation anyway, but it could still be achieved: a) int opApply(inout inout(int delegate(ref inout(T)))) dg) inout; // every inout means the same thing
So "inout inout" would be a special token sequence to link the outer and inner inouts together.
b) int opApply(inout(int delegate(ref inout(T)))) dg) inout; // the inout on the delegate parameter is distinct from the other two
I don't see what the inout applied to the type of dg is actually doing here....
2. We introduce an infinite number of wildcard storage classes: inout, inout', inout'', inout''', inout'''', ...
<snip>
[1] furthermore, we'd finally get identifier' identifiers ;)
The lexer would need to be tweaked to support these. And it might get confusing to overload ' like this, given that some other keywords can be immediately followed by a character literal.
Maybe inout$ with some kind of identifying token.... (a) int opApply(int delegate(ref inout$0(T)) dg) inout$0; (b) int opApply(int delegate(ref inout$1(T)) dg) inout$0; Hmm.... Stewart.
