On Thursday, 4 April 2013 at 16:21:50 UTC, Namespace wrote:
I don't know. My opinion has no value here.
I know. But I wanted to hear just your personal opinion about
the code and if you have any suggestions or anything.
I may advice to write a DIP that makes more accent on
theoretical side of problem - what "scope" currently is, how
it combines with ref now, how it should combine, how Andrei's
DIP fits in the picture, how it fits overall type system, what
are possible code breakage scenarios, what are typical use
cases for this feature etc. If such DIP and matching pull
request do exist, it is only matter of agreement (with
Andrei/Walter) about points stated in DIP.
Hmm, I don't know if I could write a long and good text for the
DIP. My english is very limited and not free of failures.
I still had hoped that Kenji or some other find the time, to
see over my code and to make a DIP/Pull Request.
Well, I doubt there are that many native speakers here which will
be shocked by bad English :) But if you gather all data mentioned
(see also Kenji's comment), I can write DIP itself for you. Type
system changes should be studied in smallest details as those
have have very long term consequences and incredibly hard to
replace with better solutions later.