On 8/14/11 11:50 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2011-08-14 18:45, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 8/14/11 10:33 AM, Jakob Ovrum wrote:
On 2011/08/15 0:28, dsimcha wrote:
I think this is an absolutely terrible idea, unless it has an "I know
what I'm doing, let me cast away the safety" loophole. Consider the
case
of designing a D wrapper for C functionality.
// C, we know it doesn't escape its parameters but the compiler
doesn't.
void cFun(int* a, int* b);
What if it was allowed if the parameters were explicitly marked scope?
void cFun(scope int* a, scope int* b);
I can imagine it being a proper inconvenience most of the time though,
with many libraries not escaping a lot at all, you'd have to mark pretty
much everything scope manually.
Exactly. Using scope has been part of the discussion, and our agreement
was that it would be a lot of burden to require manual scope annotations
for non-escaping parameters.
Andrei
Can we do the opposite, somehow indicating that the parameters might
escape?
We talked about this, too. I even aired ~scope. Such a change would be
doable but is liable to break a lot of code.
Andrei
