Output contract's arguements

[monarch_dodra]

On Thursday, 19 September 2013 at 10:38:37 UTC, Joseph Rushton 
Wakeling wrote:
> On 18/09/13 14:11, monarch_dodra wrote:
>> IMO, this is wrong. When calling a function with an out 
>> contract, the arguments
>> should *also* be passed to the out contract directly. "out" 
>> should not be
>> expected to run on the body's "sloppy seconds".
>
> I'm not sure I understand your objection here.  As I understood 
> it the whole point of an "out" contract was to check the state 
> of everything _after the function has exited_.

Exactly.

If the function has already exited, then why is the state of he 
arguments modified? I though pass by value meant that the 
function operated on its own copy?