[Issue 14492] Deprecate scope for allocating classes on the stack

[d-bugmail--- via Digitalmars-d-bugs]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14492

RazvanN  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |RESOLVED
 CC||razvan.nitu1...@gmail.com
 Resolution|--- |WONTFIX

--- Comment #9 from RazvanN  ---
Yes, scope on class references is here to stay since there is no other way to
express that a reference to a class should not escape the current scope.

--

[Issue 14492] Deprecate scope for allocating classes on the stack

[d-bugmail--- via Digitalmars-d-bugs]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14492

--- Comment #8 from Jonathan M Davis  ---
(In reply to Iain Buclaw from comment #7)
> DDMD still depends on this heavily.  For now scope class is going nowhere,
> if the idea of deprecating it hasn't already been completely reversed.

If I understand DIP 1000 correctly, I think that the original meaning of scope
on class reference is basically becoming an optimization done with scope rather
than the direct purpose of the feature, and the work with DIP 1000 should in
theory make it @safe. So, if DIP 1000 is accepted (and I assume it will be once
it's ready, since it's Walter who's doing it, and he's spent a lot of time on
it), then scope on class references is here to stay.

--

[Issue 14492] Deprecate scope for allocating classes on the stack

[d-bugmail--- via Digitalmars-d-bugs]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14492

Iain Buclaw  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ibuc...@gdcproject.org

--- Comment #7 from Iain Buclaw  ---
DDMD still depends on this heavily.  For now scope class is going nowhere, if
the idea of deprecating it hasn't already been completely reversed.

--

[Issue 14492] Deprecate scope for allocating classes on the stack

[via Digitalmars-d-bugs]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14492

Jonathan M Davis issues.dl...@jmdavisprog.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||issues.dl...@jmdavisprog.co
   ||m

--- Comment #2 from Jonathan M Davis issues.dl...@jmdavisprog.com ---
(In reply to bearophile_hugs from comment #1)
 Is this feature not used in Phobos?

The only place that I see it in Phobos is in a bit of code in std.datetime that
Kenji refactored a while back. No idea what it's used there. Something to do
with the windows registry. There might be a couple of other places, but it's
quite rare. Part of that though is the fact that classes are quite rare in
Phobos.

The only official place that I'm aware of where scope is used much at all is in
ddmd. I expect that it will be trivial to remove it entirely from Phobos, but I
don't know what it'll take to remove it from ddmd.

--

[Issue 14492] Deprecate scope for allocating classes on the stack

[via Digitalmars-d-bugs]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14492

bearophile_h...@eml.cc changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||bearophile_h...@eml.cc

--- Comment #1 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc ---
Is this feature not used in Phobos?

--

[Issue 14492] Deprecate scope for allocating classes on the stack

[via Digitalmars-d-bugs]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14492

yebblies yebbl...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||yebbl...@gmail.com

--- Comment #3 from yebblies yebbl...@gmail.com ---
As Jonathan said, it's used in DDMD.  What we really need is a way to make it
@safe, not deprecating it.

--

[Issue 14492] Deprecate scope for allocating classes on the stack

[via Digitalmars-d-bugs]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14492

--- Comment #4 from Jonathan M Davis issues.dl...@jmdavisprog.com ---
(In reply to yebblies from comment #3)
 As Jonathan said, it's used in DDMD.  What we really need is a way to make
 it @safe, not deprecating it.

Why aren't you using std.typecons.scoped? In theory, at least, that's supposed
to replace all uses of scope classes. But regardless, I don't see how you could
possibly make it @safe without somehow guaranteeing that no reference to the
object escapes, and I'd be surprised if you could talk Andrei into thinking
that scope should stay. I'm not sure what Walter's take on it would be though.
But it _was_ decided some time ago that scope classes were being gotten rid of,
so it's not like this is new.

--

[Issue 14492] Deprecate scope for allocating classes on the stack

[via Digitalmars-d-bugs]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14492

--- Comment #6 from yebblies yebbl...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Jonathan M Davis from comment #4)
 (In reply to yebblies from comment #3)
  As Jonathan said, it's used in DDMD.  What we really need is a way to make
  it @safe, not deprecating it.
 
 Why aren't you using std.typecons.scoped? In theory, at least, that's
 supposed to replace all uses of scope classes. But regardless, I don't see
 how you could possibly make it @safe without somehow guaranteeing that no
 reference to the object escapes, and I'd be surprised if you could talk
 Andrei into thinking that scope should stay. I'm not sure what Walter's take
 on it would be though. But it _was_ decided some time ago that scope classes
 were being gotten rid of, so it's not like this is new.

To avoid depending on phobos, for now.  If we get some form of 'scope' in the
language eventually we will hopefully be able to use it safely again.

--

[Issue 14492] Deprecate scope for allocating classes on the stack

[via Digitalmars-d-bugs]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14492

Andrej Mitrovic andrej.mitrov...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||andrej.mitrov...@gmail.com

--- Comment #5 from Andrej Mitrovic andrej.mitrov...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Jonathan M Davis from comment #4)
 (In reply to yebblies from comment #3)
  As Jonathan said, it's used in DDMD.  What we really need is a way to make
  it @safe, not deprecating it.
 
 Why aren't you using std.typecons.scoped? In theory, at least, that's
 supposed to replace all uses of scope classes. But regardless, I don't see
 how you could possibly make it @safe without somehow guaranteeing that no
 reference to the object escapes, and I'd be surprised if you could talk
 Andrei into thinking that scope should stay. I'm not sure what Walter's take
 on it would be though. But it _was_ decided some time ago that scope classes
 were being gotten rid of, so it's not like this is new.

Let's fix scoped!() first. See Issue #10921

--