On Wednesday, 18 March 2015 at 13:01:50 UTC, Oren Tirosh wrote:
The scope storage class is a two way contract. The function
promises not to escape the reference. The caller promises to
ensure the storage that the reference is pointing to will
remain valid for the duration of the function call. In some
cases, the caller code may need to take active steps to ensure
that, like keeping an otherwise temporary reference alive to
prevent it from being deallocated.
But what if the pointer is null? Can this be considered to
fulfill the caller's part of the deal?
Yes, the old @notnull debate again. For me, @safe by default
and scope by default also suggests @notnull by default for
scope references. Sorry if this opens up directions you don't
want to think about at the moment...
Don't be sorry, I agree with you 100%, and you stated it more
clearly than i could have.
