On Sunday, 7 April 2013 at 05:36:26 UTC, Zach the Mystic wrote:
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP35
I've talked about this before, but it seems like the right time
to formalize it, especially to illustrate the slight conflict
it would impose on using 'scope ref' to allow rvalue temporary
references. If 'ref' itself were made completely safe using
'scope' and/or 'out' return values, it would be possible to
allow even rvalue temporaries to escape by returning from the
function they were passed to. It may not in fact be a good
programming practice, but that is a different design decision.
If returning rvalue references were disallowed, it would
therefore pose no threat to using 'scope ref', since 'scope'
and 'scope ref' would be fully compatible then. (I'm not
specifically in favor of 'scope ref' to mean rvalue
temporaries, but at least this compatibility issue is laid on
the table. I don't think it's a horrible choice either, because
it saves on syntax creep, but its meaning *is* confusing at
first glance.)
At this point, I'm not sure why we simply don't consider to
introduce the concept of lifetime, rust style.
