27.11.08 в 01:12 Robert Jacques в своём письме писал(а):
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 13:24:57 -0500, Jarrett Billingsley
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
scope int b() { .. }
The reason I wonder is because I would expect that the compiler is
still allocating the delegate on the heap if you use the first syntax.
(the second is also shorter and clearer.)
Just as a point of reference (in D1)
scope Object a = new Object(); // Stack Allocated
scope Object b;
b = new Object(); // Heap Allocated
So there may be some merit to scope int b() { .. } vs scope int b(); b =
{...}
If so, then why all the three usages
1) scope Object a;
2) scope Object a = b;
3) scope Object a = new Object();
are allowed when only 3rd one stack-allocates? I believe only third one
should be allowed unless scope analisys is implemented (in its very basic
form, at least):
scope Object a1 = new Object(); // ok
Object a2 = a1; // not ok
scope Object a3 = a1; // ok;
return a1; // not ok
return a2; // ok
