On Wednesday, 10 April 2013 at 07:46:41 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Wednesday, 10 April 2013 at 01:40:49 UTC, Zach the Mystic
wrote:
I think for convenience the function must only be considered
unsafe if it does the above. Even returning the 'ref' is @safe
so long as the *caller* keeps track of what it passes in,
according to DIP25.
Safety of "ref" is not problem that this DIP tries to solve. It
should be solved with DIP25. Now ref is not safe (despite the
fact it pretends to) and it still won't be after DIP36
approval, not until issue is addressed in DIP25.
No need to mix it.
My proposed DIP35 uses 'scope' to enhance DIP25. I don't believe
DIP25 is really complete. 'scope' would help it a lot, but that
would give more meanings to 'scope' which are potentially in
conflict with it just meaning rvalue temp.
