On 08/19/2010 11:42 AM, SHOO wrote:
(2010/08/20 0:29), Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
It is a destructive change to deprecated scope and needs mass code
renewal. What of present scope are you dissatisfied with? The evolution
that expands present scope if possible is the best.
scope pays the sacrifice and what does get?
I want the page that summarize function/features/modules and reasons
examining the abolition.
We don't have a formal document yet, though the matter is pretty clear
to us. Consider:
class X {
...
void method() { ... }
}
void fun() {
scope x = new X;
x.method();
}
Now consider what steps you need to make sure that the code is safe.
Essentially x must not escape the scope of foo(). But x is passed inside
method() as "this". So the compiler must make sure that method() does
not escape "this". But then method() may call other functions and pass
"this" to them, or may not even be available to the compiler at the
point where scope is used. This is an unsolvable problem without making
extensive changes to the language.
As I'm sure you know we're trying to help the matter with library-based
approaches, but leaving straight in the language a feature that is
impossible to make safe is not admissible. Walter and I agree that scope
must be abolished.
Andrei
_______________________________________________
phobos mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
