Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
> If I've understood things correctly, by marking a delegate parameter with
> 'scope' you tell the compiler not to create a true closure for the
> delegate. Effectively you're saying "I promise not to escape this
> delegate, so you don't need to copy its context to the heap".
>
> In brief, my question is: Why doesn't the compiler enforce this
> promise? In particular, why is 'scope' not a type constructor?
>
> (Note that this is mostly a question out of curiosity, and not really a
> proposal for a new feature. I imagine it has been discussed in the past
> and rejected for some reason.)
>
> Considering that the compiler enforces proper use of pure, nothrow,
> const, and all those other things, it doesn't seem much harder to do the
> same with scope.
>
> As an example, I really can't see a reason why obviously wrong code like
> this should be allowed:
>
> void delegate() globalDg;
>
> void foo(scope void delegate() dg)
> {
> globalDg = dg;
> }
Most likely it is not yet implemented? It's hard to find something on this
topic, I couldn't find anything in the spec or tdpl. I did found this one
post by Andrei about your question:
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.d.concurrency/617
> Here's a slightly less obvious example, which also compiles successfully:
>
> void foo(void delegate() dg); // Who knows what this does?
>
> void bar(scope void delegate() dg)
> {
> foo(dg);
> }
>
> -Lars
