On Tuesday, 5 February 2013 at 20:24:16 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
I hope it at least considers my proposal with regard to 'out'
return
values. 'out' implies ref and guarantees that the result is as
good as
global:
out int foo(ref int a) { return a; } // Error, 'out' return
may not
return ref parameter
out int goo(ref int a) { return new int; } // Fine
My impression was that this would solve 98% of problems, the
other 2%
requiring scope parameters, which also imply ref:
ref int haa(ref int a, scope int b) { return b; } // Error,
may not
return scope parameter
ref int gaa(ref int a, scope int b) { return a; } // Fine
I'm sorry, I didn't know of that proposal. Generally we're
aiming for economy of means i.e. we want to clarify semantics
of existing syntax instead of adding new syntax and semantics.
Andrei
It's not a new syntax, just new semantics. Also, the reason for
adding these semantics to the function signature was so that the
compiler would never have to leave the function in order to
compile it. It's a natural complement to ref returns' scope being
the most local of the ref parameters, which you suggested in your
proposal. It keeps that too.
