On 15/07/14 14:47, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
These are actually the same thing: if something is stack allocated, it
must not allow the reference to escape to remain memory safe... and if
the reference is not allowed to escape, stack allocating the object
becomes an obvious automatic optimization.
People keep calling them deprecated but they really aren't - the escape
analysis to make it memory safe just isn't implemented.
Yes, I agree.
I think this is the same thing too, just on the class instead of the
object, but I wouldn't really defend this feature, even if implemented
correctly, since ALL classes really ought to be scope compatible if
possible to let the user decide on their lifetime.
If a class is allocated on the stack, its destructor will be called (at
least according to the spec). If you declare a class "scope" you know it
will always be allocated on the stack and can take advantage of that.
Even if all classes are "scope" compatible some might _only_ be
compatible with "scope".
--
/Jacob Carlborg
