On Friday, 12 December 2014 at 06:57:54 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On Friday, 12 December 2014 at 06:06:40 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Thursday, 11 December 2014 at 21:41:11 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
Consider a ref counted type, RC!T. If scope were transitive,
then you could not have, say, a tree where the edges were
RC!T. I.e., the payload of an RC type should not be forced to
be scope.
I don't see how this is related. It would be perfectly ok to
declare root of such tree scope if it was transitive (as long
as it only controls access and does not attempt early
destruction).
That is my proposal. However, it is not as simply as you think
it is without making it a type qualifier (which is not
desirable).
In effect, that mean that you can see something that has
infinite lifetime through a scope reference, so you need to
track lifetime rvalue and lvalue differently.
I'm still for it. The current proposal is not powerful enough
to pull its weight.
I don't hope it will be simple. It is all about making scope as
simple as possible to keep it useful for idiomatic D code - but
not simpler.
