On Monday, November 15, 2010 07:28:33 Steven Schveighoffer wrote: > On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 20:33:37 -0500, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisp...@gmx.com> > > wrote: > > On Friday, November 12, 2010 17:25:31 bearophile wrote: > >> Jonathan M Davis: > >> > I'm not quite sure how that will work with scope going away though. > >> > >> This scope will not go away. > > > > What's the difference between this scope and using scope on a local > > variable? > > All that is going away is scope classes. All other uses of scope are > staying. > > And even then, I think a scope class will still be supported, it just > won't allocate on the stack (it will probably be a noop like it is for > other variable types). > > scope means different things in different places. Currently, in a > parameter it means that references in the parameter cannot be escaped > (i.e. assigned to a global variable). When the compiler sees this on > delegates, it will avoid allocating a closure when taking the address of a > local function. This is essential in opApply loops. > > And you know about the scope for classes. AFAIK, those are really the > only two behavior-altering uses. Other than that, I think it's a noop.
Thanks. I knew about scope classes and scope statements (e.g. scope(failure) ...), but I didn't know that scope on a parameter was different from scope classes. scope is definitely an over-used keyword IMHO. - Jonathan M Davis