Is there anything fundamentally wrong with a variadic function parameters being defined as such:

void foo(inout ...){}

If so, please explain why. Otherwise please add this feature.

Thanks,
Andrew

In article <cq777v$nmp$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Russ Lewis says...
>
>Tyro wrote:
>> Is there anything fundamentally wrong with a variadic function parameters being defined as such:
>> 
>> void foo(inout ...){}
>
>This might be an interesting way to implement a scanf alternative. Although with something like scanf, 'out' might make more sense than 'inout'.
>

This is precisely my reason for asking! Though out is better for scanf(), I think both out and inout should be authorized for use in this manner.

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 18:28:58 +0000 (UTC), Tyro <Tyro_member@pathlink.com> wrote:

> Is there anything fundamentally wrong with a variadic function parameters being
> defined as such:
>
> void foo(inout ...){}
>
> If so, please explain why. Otherwise please add this feature.
>
> Thanks,
> Andrew
>
>

I would rather have a little more contol in general on these functions, things
like foo(bar ree, out uint outArgs..., in uint inArgs...) {} would be nice,
(although I can't think of an explicit exapmle where you want this checked at
compile-time) but I wonder what the syntax would be like? inArgs.ptr?
outArgs[4].typeid? Could be interesting to discuss, at least.

-- 
"Unhappy Microsoft customers have a funny way of becoming Linux,
Salesforce.com and Oracle customers." - www.microsoft-watch.com:
"The Year in Review: Microsoft Opens Up"
--
"I plan on at least one critical patch every month, and I haven't been disappointed."
- Adam Hansen, manager of security at Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP
(Quote from http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1736104,00.asp)
--
"It's been a challenge to "reteach or retrain" Web users to pay for content, said Pizey"
-Wired website: "The Incredible Shrinking Comic"