Escape analysis

[Walter Bright]

Michel Fortin wrote:
> On 2008-10-27 18:15:24 -0400, Walter Bright <newshound1 at digitalmars.com> 
> said:
> 
>> That argues that "noscope" should be the default. Using "scope" would 
>> be an optional optimization.
> 
> I don't think you have much choice. Take these examples:
> 
>     scope(int*)* a; // noscope pointer to a scope pointer.
> 
>     noscope(int*)* b; // scope pointer to a noscope pointer.
> 
> Only one of these two makes sense.

scope is a storage class, not a type constructor.