• Jason House <jason.james.house gmail.com> Dec 16 2009

Jason House <jason.james.house gmail.com> writes:

Walter Bright Wrote:

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


 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);
}