On Saturday, 20 December 2014 at 21:39:44 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
On 12/19/2014 9:44 PM, Dicebot wrote:
Such notion of "view" requires at least some elements of
transitivity to be
practical in my opinion.
I have no idea how "some elements of transitivity" can even
work. It's either transitive or its not. Please don't think of
scope in terms of ownership, ownership is an orthogonal issue.
.. and here I was about you to do exactly the same :P What in
example I show makes you think of ownership?
When I was speaking about "some elements of transitivity" I was
thinking in a way of keeping scope storage class but transitively
applying same restrictions to all data accessible through it AS
IF it had scope storage class on its own - while still making
illegal to use scope as a separate type qualifier.
Also with my definition in mind your example of tree
that stores scope nodes makes absolutely no sense unless whole
tree itself is
scoped (and nodes are thus scoped transitively). Such view is
always assumes
worst case about ownership and shouldn't persist in any form
(as that would
require some serious ownership tracking).
This is definitely conflating scope and ownership.
No, it is exactly the other way around. The very point of what I
am saying is that you DOESN'T CARE about ownership as long as
worst case scenario is assumed. I have zero idea why you
identify it is conflating as ownership when it is explicitly
designed to be distinct.
