On Sunday, 21 April 2013 at 10:55:37 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
The DIP for instance, consider that const scope ref is
semantically equivalent to pass by value, when it isn't (and
not only for performance reasons, but for aliasing reasons).
Nothing is considered about it.
At least some objections that make sense and I'd love to see in
the very first announcement. If you see any issues that prevent
treating "const scope int" as "const scope ref int", please
tell about them and they will be addressed in DIP. Because it
is the intention. I don't understand what aliasing are you
speaking about.
The only thing I could think of was if you want to 'ref' a
reference type.
void func(ref Object o, scope Object o2, scope ref Object o3) {}
Would there be a difference between the type of o and o2, or of
o2 and o3? There is inconsistency, but it would be nice to find
use cases which make this inconsistency truly unworkable with
other things in the language.
