Opportunities for D

[H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d]

On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 12:47:30AM -0700, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 7/8/2014 10:00 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> >On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 07:42:50PM -0700, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> >>On 7/8/2014 3:37 PM, bearophile wrote:
[...]
> >>>Is "scope" still left for future usage, or used for a different
> >>>purpose, or deprecated?
> >>
> >>That would have to be addressed as part of this.
> >
> >Does that mean that finally 'scope' will work as advertised? I've
> >been waiting for that for a long time.
> 
> Help is welcome working on a design.

I would, except that I'm unsure of exactly what is needed in said
design.  Are we just trying to nail down the exact semantics of 'scope'?
Or are we looking at implementational issues (possible compiler
performance hits)? Or both? Or something else altogether? Do we need to
account for (what little exists of) the current implementation? Speaking
of which, what *is* the current extent of the implementation of 'scope'?
I assume it isn't just a no-op, since I see it applied to delegate
parameters every now and then?


T

-- 
What's a "hot crossed bun"? An angry rabbit.