Am Thu, 07 Feb 2013 09:04:29 +0100 schrieb "deadalnix" <deadal...@gmail.com>:
> On Thursday, 7 February 2013 at 07:41:57 UTC, Johannes Pfau wrote: > > Am Wed, 06 Feb 2013 23:45:51 +0100 > > schrieb Robert <jfanati...@gmx.at>: > > > >> What happened to the scope storage class for parameters. > >> > >> Wouldn't this solve the problems, with the simple rule that > >> you are > >> not allowed to pass transient objects by reference if the > >> parameter > >> was not declared with scope? And if I understood correctly, the > >> compiler is already capable of locally ensuring that the > >> address does > >> not escape (to ensure the scope requirement), so we are all > >> set? > > > > This is an important question. How would this new proposal > > interact with > > scope parameters? > > > > scope in not enough, as you can alias parameters (for instance > swap). Can you give an example? I understand the scope is not enough to completely replace the rules in the proposal, but shouldn't it be legal to pass addresses of stack variables in @safe code as a scope parameter? Could this cause issues as well?
