On Saturday, 13 September 2014 at 01:49:05 UTC, Manu via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
I'm not convinced this is a good change.
It sounds like you're just trading one problem with another
more sinister
problem...
Ok, I thought about it some more. I'm still not convinced
completely, but I'm warming up to the idea of making scope a type
modifier. However, Ivan's objections need to be addressed.
Maybe let's start with a list of problems of the type modifier
way. So far:
* What is ElementType!(ByLineImpl!(char, "\n")) in the example
from the wiki page [1]?
* Should Unqual!T strip `scope`?
Anything else? How can we solve these problems?
Another argument against storage class is a syntactical ambiguity
in conncection with methods:
struct S {
scope!this int* foo() scope;
}
It's ambiguous whether any given scope keyword applies to the
return value or `this`. One could argue though that this is a
consequence of the general function attribute problem and should
preferably be fixed there. (`ref` doesn't have this problem
because it cannot apply to `this`.)
[1]
http://wiki.dlang.org/User:Schuetzm/scope#scope.21.28const_....29
