DIP69 - Implement scope for escape proof references

[deadalnix via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 11 December 2014 at 09:07:44 UTC, Ola Fosheim 
Grøstad wrote:
> On Thursday, 11 December 2014 at 00:35:46 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
>> It is always safe to consider scopeness of the retrun value 
>> (if marked scope) as being the intersection of the lifetime of 
>> parameters.
>>
>> That should cover most bases, and we can still extends later 
>> if this is too limited (I suspect it is ok for most cases).
>
> Linear typing is already extremely limiting, by limiting it 
> even further you end up with something annoying. You basically 
> get a version of memory safety that does not solve any typical 
> memory unsafe situations.
>
> By having pointers that do scope-depth-tracking you do at least 
> get a generic solution that can be optimized away when 
> possible. The D authors have to accept that you need to embed 
> ownership in pointers if you want memory safety and 
> convenience, or that you have to provide means to guide the 
> semantic analysis. You need one or the other, or both, but you 
> cannot pretend that you can do without.
>
> Arbitrary constraints are annoying, not convenient. If I as a 
> programmer know that something is safe, then the compiler 
> should accept it, and the language should allow me express it.

I have no idea what you are saying. It sounds like randomly 
generated gibberish.