On Monday, 22 December 2014 at 03:07:53 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 12/21/2014 2:06 AM, Dicebot wrote:
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.
The point of transitive scoping would be if the root owned the
data reachable through the root.
Quoting myself:
For me "scopeness" is a property of "view", not object itself -
this also makes ownership method of actual data irrelevant. Only
difference between GC owned data and stack allocated one is that
former can have scoped view optionally but for the latter
compiler must force it as the only available.
It doesn't matter of root owns the data. We _assume_ that as
worst case scenario and allowed actions form a strict subset of
allowed actions for any other ownership situation. Such `scope`
for stack/GC is same as `const` for mutable/immutable - common
denominator.
Point of transitive scope is to make easy to expose complex
custom data structures without breaking memory safety.
