Type Qualifiers and Wild Cards

[so]

On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 01:20:44 +0200, Walter Bright  
<newshound2 at digitalmars.com> wrote:

> On 11/8/2011 9:37 AM, Gor Gyolchanyan wrote:
>> Polluting keyword space is not a good idea unless it's impossible to
>> interfere with identifiers.
>> If keywords used a special syntax, like starting with a special
>> character, then this wouldn't be an issue
>
>
> The whole "too many keywords" issue strikes me as strange. English has  
> over a million words in it. Who cares if a language uses 80 or 100 of  
> them? What difference can it possibly make? How can an extra 20 words  
> pollute the million word namespace (and not including any non-word  
> identifiers (like inout))?
>
> Another silly aspect of this issue is all keywords could be replaced by  
> a sequence of special characters. For example, we could replace inout  
> with ##. Voila! Less keywords! But is that better?
>
> Keywords exist to make the language more readable. That's why we use  
> inout instead of ##, and it's why we use + instead of add.
>
> D is a rich language. That means it's going to have more syntax, more  
> keywords and more symbols.

My only concern with keywords is that to me a keyword must lift its own  
weight,
For specific issues such as this, if there is a library solution (which i  
think is not applicable here),
or a solution which requires an overload to an already defined keyword, it  
would be IMO a better choice.
I can see why we have a keyword for it, and why it is not @inout. I  
suggested "return" because it semantically fits the definition of inout.
Yet, you are again right, i didn't think about neither local/variable  
usage nor tuple syntax.