www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Re: transporting qualifier from parameter to the return value

Walter Bright Wrote:

 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 Time has come to make a decision on implementing Steven Schveighoffer's 

Unmentioned in the proposal is is inout a type constructor or a storage class? For example, U[inout(T)]* foo(inout(X)*** p) { ... } This is much more complex to implement than only allowing inout at the top level, i.e. as a storage class. I also prefer the idea of inout on the return type being assumed, rather than explicit: T foo(inout U p) { ... } Yes, there's the legacy compatibility issue there. A long time ago, I suggested using the keyword 'return' for that, instead of inout: T foo(return U p) { ... } which looks fine until you use it for member functions: T foo() return { ... } ugh.

I initially liked return as the keyword as well, but it's problematic for intermediate variables. inout(U) foo(inout(T) t){ inout V v = t.someMember.somethingElse; return bar(v); }
Dec 16 2009