Ironclad C++

[deadalnix]

On Friday, 9 August 2013 at 14:47:23 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
> 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?

It is ambiguous if the inout of the function passed as parameter 
stand for the function passed as parameter or the function you 
pass the parameter to.