relax inout rules?

[Don]

On 12.12.2011 19:56, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> Currently, the rules of inout say you cannot put inout on a parameter
> without putting it on the return type as well. This makes sense, it
> gives the compiler one place to worry about whether implicit casting
> rules will properly work.
>
> But Timon Gehr brought up in another thread (started by Merdhad) that we
> can separate the resolution of inout from the applicability of the
> parameters. Essentially, calling an inout function goes through two phases:
>
> 1. determine what inout resolves to
> 2. try and call the function.
>
> inout rules don't have to change regarding resolving inout's actual
> value. In other words, if all inout places are matched as int,
> immutable, or inout, then inout resolves to that value. Otherwise inout
> resolves to const.
> If this ends up being viable, this is actually easier to explain than
> the current rules for inout. We just have to make sure the rules are
> sound before doing something like this.

Looks as though 'inout' is about to become a misnomer...