On Thursday, 4 April 2013 at 14:43:26 UTC, Namespace wrote:
On Thursday, 4 April 2013 at 07:52:51 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
After some thinking on topic I come to conclusion that rvalue
refs _should_ be "scope ref" and stuff like "ref int f(@temp
ref int x) { return x; }" is invalid. I can see no valid use
case for such an error-prone case. Contrary, "scope ref" feels
just like it was designed for this task, also a good moment to
actually define what "scope" means.
I am beginning to like scope ref also. It just fits.
Nice that we agree on that now - but I still miss Kenji's,
Walters and Andrei's blessing. Otherwise I think it would be
ripe for a pull request. Or there is any difficulty?
I don't know. My opinion has no value here. I may advice to write
a DIP that makes more accent on theoretical side of problem -
what "scope" currently is, how it combines with ref now, how it
should combine, how Andrei's DIP fits in the picture, how it fits
overall type system, what are possible code breakage scenarios,
what are typical use cases for this feature etc. If such DIP and
matching pull request do exist, it is only matter of agreement
(with Andrei/Walter) about points stated in DIP.
