Is D 0.163 D 1.0?

[Sean Kelly]

Chad J wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
>> Derek wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 00:33:23 +0000 (UTC), Andrei Khropov wrote:
>>>
>>>> And what about double meaning of 'auto'?
>>>
>>>
>>> In general 'auto' is a poor choice for both meanings. 'auto' is 
>>> obviously
>>> shorthand for automatic, but automatic what???
>>> Walter, given that 'auto' as a keyword is not going to be removed 
>>> from the
>>> language, how can one currently declare a type-inferred variable that 
>>> has
>>> RAII properties?
>>>
>>
>> Regan Heath penned the solution I thought I'd posted a while back, but 
>> maybe I hadn't:
>>
>>> class A {}
>>>
>>> A a = new A(); //normal
>>> A a = A(); //destroyed at end of scope
>>>
>>> and with auto..
>>>
>>> auto a = new A(); //normal
>>> auto a = A(); //destroyed at end of scope
>>>
>>> Simple, elegant, obvious (IMO) 
>>
>>
> 
> Myself I would prefer not to have that.  It creates an ambiguity between 
>  a static opCall on A and the storage attribute.
> So:
> 
> class A
> {
>   static A opCall() { ...do something... }
> }
> 
> A a = A(); // destroyed at end of scope, or call A.opCall()?
> 
> I prefer the storage attribute have it's own keyword.  Perhaps give 
> storage 'auto' and type inference 'var'.  For me, that makes it more 
> obvious, since to my eyes it would be a keyword that I've never seen 
> before and now need to look up in the spec - otherwise it's just a 
> static opCall :(.

By the way, I'd suggested an alternate syntax that admittedly uses a new 
keyword:

A a = local A();

(or I suppose)

A a = auto A();

I think it's more appropriate to attach the keyword to the initializer 
rather than the declaration since the reference is just a reference 
either way.


Sean