On Tuesday, 23 April 2013 at 07:18:41 UTC, Diggory wrote:
I'd still like someone to explain how exactly "scope ref" would
differ from "ref" if DIP25/DIP35 were implemented.
If the only difference is that "scope ref" can accept rvalues
then why would you ever use normal "ref"? There are no extra
restrictions needed on "scope ref" over and above normal "ref"
under the assumption of DIP25/DIP35.
DIP25 imposes a number of code-breaking restrictions even in
@system code, if DIP36 was in place, one could consider imposing
the DIP25 restrictions only in SafeD.
Furthermore if one day the compiler would be sufficiently smart
to infer scope automatically, there still would be an important
difference between 'ref' and 'scope ref'.
ref
rvalue ref would only work if the compiler succeeds in inferring
scope, it could take a conservative approach to make sure it
always err:s in the harmless direction... i.e. any '&' or any asm
block is an automatic failure.
scope ref
Works unless the compiler can prove it wrong(also usable from
SafeD if marked with @trusted).
