DIP25 draft available for destruction

[deadalnix]

On Thursday, 7 February 2013 at 07:41:57 UTC, Johannes Pfau wrote:
> Am Wed, 06 Feb 2013 23:45:51 +0100
> schrieb Robert <jfanatiker at gmx.at>:
>
>> What happened to the scope storage class for parameters.
>> 
>> Wouldn't this solve the problems, with the simple rule that 
>> you are
>> not allowed to pass transient objects by reference if the 
>> parameter
>> was not declared with scope? And if I understood correctly, the
>> compiler is already capable of locally ensuring that the 
>> address does
>> not escape (to ensure the scope requirement), so we are all 
>> set?
>
> This is an important question. How would this new proposal 
> interact with
> scope parameters?
>

scope in not enough, as you can alias parameters (for instance 
swap).