On Wednesday, 24 June 2015 at 16:39:22 UTC, kink wrote:
On Wednesday, 24 June 2015 at 11:19:04 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
[...]
3. Add a new attribute which does what's being proposed for
auto ref for non-templated functions, in which case, we can
use the non-templated behavior with templates as well and thus
avoid template bloat when all you want is for your templated
function to accept both lvalues and rvalues. auto ref, of
course, then stays exactly as it is now.
At the moment, it seems that #2 is the most likely, and that's
probably fine, but I do wonder if we'd be better off with #3,
especially when you consider how much D code tends to be
templated and how much code bloat auto ref is likely to
generate with templated functions.
- Jonathan M Davis
If that wasn't clear before, I'm all for #3 too. Just call it
`scope ref` and simplify the PR a lil' bit as suggested by Marc
in an earlier post
[http://forum.dlang.org/post/[email protected]].
But this has _nothing_ to do with scope, and scope ref was
already rejected. The whole point of this is support having a
function accept both rvalues and lvalues, not to do anything with
scope.
And given that what scope does has never even been properly
defined - all that the spec says about scope parameters is
"references in the parameter cannot be escaped (e.g. assigned to
a global variable)" - and that the only place that scope does
anything at all is with delegates, trying to expand it with
"scope ref" as if that were simply an extension of scope makes no
sense. Before we can even consider what something like scope ref
might mean, we'd have to properly define what scope means. And
all we have for it is the basic idea of what it's supposed to do
- none of the details - and trying to define scope ref before
defining what scope means in general could totally hamstring us
when properly defining scope later.
- Jonathan M Davis
