Ref (was Re: inlining)

[Jarrett Billingsley]

"superdan" <super at dan.org> wrote in message 
news:g5qa4f$n1g$1 at digitalmars.com...
> Matti Niemenmaa Wrote:
>
>> Walter Bright wrote:
>> > I don't see the need for an inline or non-inline specifier. It's as
>> > obsolete as the register keyword.
>>
>> Then why was "inout" renamed to "ref"?
>>
>> Before you say, "so that we could have 'const ref'", let me note that ref 
>> in
>> that sense is as obsolete as inline or register. It should just be "in" 
>> or the
>> default and the compiler should figure out whether it's by-reference or 
>> by-value.
>
> how is that even close to making sense?
>
> before you say, "but value vs. 'in' is entirely transparent to the user", 
> let me note that aliasing is going to fuck that plan right there.
>
> deciding value vs. reference only works for invariant shit. it's in fact 
> part of why invariant shit is so fucking brilliant.

Dan, you make good points and seem to have a head on your shoulders, but the 
swearing really is unnecessary.  That doesn't mean I don't swear, I do it 
all the time.  But this is not really the place for it.

Consider how much more coherent and reasonable your post sounds like this:

----
how is that even close to making sense?

before you say, "but value vs. 'in' is entirely transparent to the user", 
let me note that aliasing is going to completely invalidate that plan right 
there.

deciding value vs. reference only works for invariant data. it's in fact 
part of why invariant data is so incredibly brilliant.
----

Please don't take this as an attack, I'm not trying to make you feel like 
you're less of a member of the community.  Swearing on the internet just 
makes you seem like a 13-year-old boy.