Ironclad C++

[Kagamin]

On Tuesday, 6 August 2013 at 16:55:43 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
> On Tuesday, 6 August 2013 at 15:13:18 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
>> inout already has proper scoping: data external to the 
>> function shouldn't be qualified as inout, it just should be 
>> checked.
>
> In shown examples, 2 function signatures are involved. If you 
> don't understand where the ambiguity lies, I suggest you step 
> back and reconsider the situation.

Semantics of inout doesn't depend on the number of functions. 
What is ambiguous in the given description?