On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 18:01:10 -0500, Stewart Gordon <smjg_1...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On 07/03/2012 22:48, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 17:37:53 -0500, Stewart Gordon
<smjg_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
cast() is an abomination. I'm not sure OTTOMH whether it's a bug that
it works.
Sorry, it's just easier than typing cast(int*).
Which is another abomination. The means of casting away constancy
should be explicit.
I agree, but it doesn't make it illegal. It was just a means to show what
I meant.
<snip>
But from an API point of view, I look at at inout as guaranteeing
anything the parameter
points at won't change while inside the function *using that
parameter*. Even though it's
legal, it's disingenuous (at least as long as we define inout that
way).
That's what const is for.
And inout. Sorry, it was meant that way, even if you don't agree.
Maybe _you_ meant it that way, but did anyone else?
I actually designed it...
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1961
http://prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs/DIP2
-Steve
