bearophile wrote:
[...]
> Another possible solution is to modify the semantics of this kind of
> arguments pass, so the code inside the function foo always see an
> args array allocated on the heap:
> void foo(int[] args...) { // code
> You may then add "scope" to restore the original lighter semantics:
> void foo(scope int[] args...) { // code
> This is safer than the current semantics because the safe design is
> the built-in one and the faster is on request.
I don't know how easy it would be, but I *really* like this proposal. It has
one other advantage, in that you can use the `scope` keyword for things other
than varargs, like closures.
Cheers,
Pillsy
