On 9/21/2014 2:11 AM, "Marc Schütz" <schue...@gmx.net>" wrote:
On Sunday, 21 September 2014 at 03:39:24 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
I think it's a well thought out proposal. Thanks for doing this!
A couple thoughts:
1. const can be both a storage class and a type constructor. Scope is only a
storage class. The scope(int) syntax implies scope is a type constructor, too.
const int* a; // const used as storage class
const(int*) b; // const used as type constructor
The type constructor syntax should be disallowed for const.
(... disallowed for _scope_, I assume)
Yes, my mistake.
I originally intended it to be part of the type. Ivan Timokhin pointed out
severe problems with that [1], so I removed it from the proposal. The syntax is
a remainder of that.
But before I remove it too, I have a question: Will it still be possible to use
the storage class syntax for members of aggregates?
struct S {
scope!myAllocator int* p;
}
Possible, but exactly how that would work remains to be seen.
