DIP 36: Rvalue References

[Zach the Mystic]

On Wednesday, 10 April 2013 at 05:21:40 UTC, Manu wrote:
> Why are you suggesting changing scope to imply ref? This seems 
> wrong. scope
> and ref are separate, should remain that way.

To be clear, I suggested it, not Kenji. The reason scope could 
imply ref is that no value type is ever unsafe. If you copy the 
value you're passing, there's no way the reference could escape 
the scope, because there's no reference! A delegate has an 
implicit pointer and is inherently a reference type, which is why 
it can work with 'scope'. In all likelihood 'scope' implying 
'ref' would needlessly complicate the type system, in exchange 
for the convenience of only having to type either 'scope' or 
'ref' depending on what you wanted. But I suggested it because I 
at least wanted it to be discussed.