relax inout rules?

[kenji hara]

2011/12/13 Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy at yahoo.com>:
> immutable(int) c;
> auto pc = &c;
>
> foo(&pc, &b);
>
> Now, foo is being called with (immutable(int)**, int *).  Inout resolves to
> const (due to the mix of mutable and immutable).  *NOW* we try calling foo
> as if it were written:
>
> const(int)* foo(const(int)** a, const(int)* b);
>
> And it *FAILS*.  This is because you cannot implicitly convert
> immutable(int)** to const(int)** (well, at least it *shouldn't* compile, I'm
> not sure if it does currently).

Today, with git head, this code might be rejected correctly.
So relaxing inout rule is more reasonable now.

Kenji Hara