On 07/28/2010 01:36 AM, Graham St Jack wrote:
On 28/07/10 07:50, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Graham St Jack wrote:
On 28/07/10 05:47, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Max Samukha wrote:
On 07/27/2010 10:53 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
and scope storage class.
If scope storage class is going, we need a library equivalent. Current
'scoped' is not good due to 4500.
Agreed. I know how to fix it.
Andrei
I missed the previous discussions about removing the scoped storage
class. Would you mind re-stating the argument here, or post a link to
it?
FWIW I'm happy for delete to be removed.
In brief scope is unsafe and impossible to make safe without extensive
changes to the language.
Andrei
Thanks. I definitely agree that it should go if it can't be made to work
properly.
Please be careful. Safe or not, anything should go only if it have a
reasonable replacement. We don't need a safe but useless language.
