> On Jun 9, 2017, at 2:42 PM, Gor Gyolchanyan via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > My answer to `inout` is to promote it to a full-fledged "storage class" (in C > terminology) and allow normal variables to be `inout`. > This would immediately solve the problems with `inout` being a magical thing > in functions, as well as a convenient way of storing "references" (in C++ > terminology) to potentially huge inout expressions, not to mention returning > an inout from a function, effectively spreading the getter-setter awesomeness > to everything else besides properties and subscripts.
C++ implements this idea by being utterly unsafe; Rust implements it by introducing entire new dimensions of language complexity. Are you proposing one of these in particular, or do you have your own concept? John. _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
