Pillsy:
> 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,
That looks easy to implement, the compiler doesn't need to be smart to do that.
The other idea of @noheap is harder to implement.
> It has one other advantage, in that you can use the `scope` keyword for
> things other than varargs, like closures.
That scope syntax is already supported for closures, and it's partially
implemented (or fully implemented, I am not sure).
Bye,
bearophile
