current "ref" args state.

[evilrat via Digitalmars-d]

On Monday, 19 May 2014 at 09:56:38 UTC, bearophile wrote:
> evilrat:
>
>> i may overlooked proposals for this case, if any please give a 
>> link, sorry for possible duplicate topic.
>
> This proposal was discussed two or three times in past, it 
> makes the D code look a little worse (beside being a breaking 
> change if you want require the ref at the calling point). But 
> it also makes D code a little less surprising.

the idea is just give a warning for ref if not explicitly stated 
so. no code breakage should occur, only i little warning. 
honestly i can't imagine how it makes code look worse, especially 
since this is a keyword it should be really easy visually 
distinctable in editors.

> As refinement of this idea, some people suggested to require 
> "ref" at the calling point only if the reference is mutable.

good point too. though i don't know current behaviour for 
immutable refs.

> And what about the "out" function arguments? Don't you want to 
> annotate them too at the calling point?

ummm... yes i forgot that there is also "out", but isn't it 
working *almost* same way as ref? with "out" we specifically asks 
function to mutate our data for result. if this is real problem 
maybe some other keyword should be added for both cases at once, 
something like "rout" from ref and out?