On Thursday, 9 May 2013 at 22:42:14 UTC, Manu wrote:
And it's
even questionable that scope as originally intended can be
properly
implemented anyway.
...so, the problem is no different than 'auto ref' as you
mention above.
It's not implemented as drafted, and we're debating what's
actually
correct. Clearly the draft was incomplete in both cases.
I only support the proposal (from others) that scope ref makes
so much more
sense, and I think we've also proven it can be made to work
syntactically
without holes, which I don't believe is so for auto ref.
However despite the elusiveness of a solution, it looks like
we'll be able to implement auto ref as was originally intended.
We may also be able to implement scope as was originally
intended, but not if we use it for another purpose.
In any event you may want to use scope ref to prevent escapes
and also refuse to use rvalues, so it is not a good solution for
that reason alone.
--rt
