On 20 October 2016 at 04:18, Namespace via Digitalmars-d < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, 19 October 2016 at 18:15:25 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > >> Which then causes the problem that it becomes much less clear whether ref >> is supposed to be modifying its argument or is just trying to avoid copying >> it - though good documentation can mitigate that problem. >> >> - Jonathan M Davis >> > > As long as it would be marked with scope (or some similar attribute) so > that it cannot escape, it would be fine, wouldn't it? > Right, I was arguing this for years. Using 'scope' to make the concept @safe. It seemed that it in the past the key reason for rejecting it was because it was unsafe to pass an rvalue-temp to a function where it's unknown if the function can cause it to outlive the function call... scope was the obvious resolution to that (along with a lot of other issues related to safety).
