On Wednesday, 9 July 2014 at 23:58:39 UTC, H. S. Teoh via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
So here's a first stab at refining (and extending) what 'scope'
should be:
In general, I like it, but can scopedness be inferred? The
impression I get from this is we're supposed to manually annotate
every scoped everything, which IMO kind of moots the benefits in
a broad sense.
If it _cannot_ be inferred (even if imperfectly), then I wonder
if it doesn't make more sense to invert the proposed default and
require annotation when scope restrictions need to be eased. The
ideal seems like it could be a major blow against non-local
errors, but relying on convention isn't desirable.
Of course, in fairness, I may be misunderstanding the application
of this entirely...?
-Wyatt
