On 1/3/2015 5:12 PM, Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
I was firmly in support of Marc's design. I'm not sure why it was rejected.
What were the problems? Why did it become a storage class, other than
because of fear that it might pervade too deeply if it were part of
the type?
I felt unaddressed what are the interactions with other scope qualifiers, how
type deduction works, how would auto work, covariance, how are types like
int****scope(foo)****
handled, how would generic code get written that used this, name mangling, auto
returns, etc. A comprehensive spec for it would be much larger. I tried to do a
more comprehensive spec with DIP69, and it wound giving the impression that it
was more complex when it was actually simpler. I'm also painfully aware of how
'simple' C++'s ref appeared and how awful it is in practice.
And lastly, I thought it verbose, such as:
scope!haystack(string) findSubstring(scope(string) haystack, scope(string)
needle);
There have been many complaints, including from you, about the existing
verbosity of function declarations.
