Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Following work on typechecking synchronized methods, Walter and I were
discussing about managing escaping references to objects that wouldn't
actually agree to escaping. The problem is that today a value has no
idea that its address is being taken, so it has no saying in that.
To compensate for that, my idea was to allow @disable on opUnary!"&".
Walter suggested allowing "scope" as a property of a struct:
scope struct Transitory
{
...
}
A scope struct cannot have its address taken. You can take addresses
of its members (access permitting), but you can't take the address of
any other struct that has at least one scope struct as a direct
member. For example:
struct A
{
int x;
Transitory tr;
}
A will also be scope. So scope has this funny way of propagating
outwards, as opposed to qualifiers, which propagate inwards.
Though the feature seems useful, I worry about the asymmetry with scope
classes.
Scope classes will be eliminated from the language.
Andrei
