On Friday, 27 February 2015 at 00:44:21 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On Thursday, 26 February 2015 at 22:45:19 UTC, Zach the Mystic
wrote:
I'm starting to see what you mean. I guess it's only
applicable to variables with double (or more) indirections
(e.g. T**, T***, etc.), since only they can lose information
with transitive scopes. Looks like we need a new rule:
variables assigning to one of their double indirections cannot
acquire a scope-depth greater than (or lifetime less than)
their current one. Does that fix the problem?
Cool. I think that can work (I'm not 100% convinced, but at
least something close to that should work). But that is
probably too limiting.
Hence the proposed differentiation of lvalue and rvalues.
Yeah, wasn't completely clear. I meant to say:
Variables assigning to one of their double indirections cannot
acquire a scope-depth greater than (or lifetime less than) their
current longest-lived one. Also, bear in mind, a parameter could
be an "lvalue":
void fun(T* a, T** b) {
*b = a;
}
I guess its just better to use "source" and "targer" than lvalue
and rvalue.
Also bear in mind that in the worst case scenario, any code can
be made to work by putting it into the newly approved-of idiom:
The @trusted Lambda! We want a safety mechanism conservative
enough to catch all failures, accurate enough to avoid too many
false positives (thus minimizing @trusted lambdas), easy enough
to implement, and which doesn't tax compile time too heavily. The
magic Four! I still have a few doubts (recursive inference, for
example, which can probably be improved), but not too many.
