On 07/25/2010 08:22 AM, bearophile wrote:
Trass3r:
Now they seem to intend to remove scope too (didn't read the topic
thoroughly though, I'm sick of all those "remove every single
keyword there is in the language" threads)
The Scope!() replacement for scope is not good enough yet: 1) The
compiler doesn't test for escapes (as dmd currently naively does for
scoped objects); 2) There is no way to denote a class that must be
scoped; 3) There is this problem:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4500
I think Andrei's (wrong) strategy is to remove things first, and then
try to invent ways to patch the holes left by the removed stuff. So
far the idea of removing scope is a failure, it produces more
problems than it solves.
The issue is that the scope keyword is impossible to check against
escapes without extra additions to the language (e.g. marking a method
or a function parameter as scoped). Such an uncheckable pattern is best
left to a library feature, it doesn't deserve a keyword. I agree that
scoped() has weaknesses that should be looked into, but scope must go.
Andrei
