On Thursday, 13 November 2014 at 10:32:05 UTC, Manu via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
I don't think this proposal has issues with that.
The thing at the root of the call tree is the 'owner'. Nothing
can
escape a scope call-tree, so the owner or allocation policy
doesn't
matter, and that's the whole point.
That is way to define ownerhsip so that is not a rebutal of my
comment. This makes assumption about ownership, that we may or
may not want;
I think the proposal is sound overall (I haven't try to explore
all special cases scenarios, so it is a reserved yes for now) but
going forward with this before defining ownership is not a good
approach.
