Robert Jacques wrote:
Just as a point of reference (in D1)
scope Object a = new Object(); // Stack Allocated
scope Object b;
b = new Object(); // Heap Allocated
So there may be some merit to scope int b() { .. } vs scope int b(); b =
{...}
I can't find any spec on exactly how scope works, but this makes 100%
sense to me. Let me explain the way that I think scope
does/might/should work:
The thing to remember is that "scope" is *not* transitive. Scope limits
the most shallow reference, *not* not anything deeper. It is perfectly
valid to have a scope pointer to a non-scope thing. The point of scope
is to enforce that the pointer cannot escape; it does not say anything
about whether the pointed-to object escapes or not.
The point then, is that you can create a non-scope object, and assign it
to a scope pointer. When you do something like:
BEGIN CODE
scope <type> a;
a = <allocate thing>;
END CODE
...you are doing exactly that.
(At least, that's how I think it ought to work.)
