wrong layout in __inout parameter__ concept introduction: still not fixed

[kawazaki42]

if you search exercism/warning on github.com/exercism, it gives just 8 mentions, while searching exercism/note and exercism/caution gives >100. so i think it just doesn't understand warning

yet point 1 isn't very clear that it's about ownership and such, even in context of point 2. it sounds like "you can accept an inout parameter, yet you can't use it" instead of "don't alias the variable and its inout version in the same function". we probably also need an example for it?

[github-actions]

Hello. Thanks for opening a PR on Exercism 🙂

We ask that all changes to Exercism are discussed on our Community Forum before being opened on GitHub. To enforce this, we automatically close all PRs that are submitted. That doesn't mean your PR is rejected but that we want the initial discussion about it to happen on our forum where a wide range of key contributors across the Exercism ecosystem can weigh in.

You can use this link to copy this into a new topic on the forum. If we decide the PR is appropriate, we'll reopen it and continue with it, so please don't delete your local branch.

If you're interested in learning more about this auto-responder, please read this blog post.

---

Note: If this PR has been pre-approved, please link back to this PR on the forum thread and a maintainer or staff member will reopen it.

[github-actions]

Hello 👋 Thanks for your PR.

This repo does not currently have dedicated maintainers. Our cross-track maintainers team will attempt to review and merge your PR, but it will likely take longer for your PR to be reviewed.

If you enjoy contributing to Exercism and have a track-record of doing so successfully, you might like to become an Exercism maintainer for this track.

Please feel free to ask any questions, or chat to us about anything to do with this PR or the reviewing process on the Exercism forum.

(cc @exercism/cross-track-maintainers)

[BNAndras]

I don't speak Swift, but this compiler error doesn't seem to be about inout. The example should fail specifically because we're accessing something passed as inout. We'll probably want to update this example for every instance it appears in the PR.

[IsaacG]

I think this is trying to fix the same thing at #870 ?