Why is `scope` planned for deprecation?

[Manu via Digitalmars-d]

On 13 November 2014 22:01, via Digitalmars-d
<digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, 13 November 2014 at 11:44:31 UTC, Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>
>> I don't follow how you associate that opinion with implementation of
>> scope.
>
>
> I don't like semantics where I have to state that the parameters and the
> function should be "pure". It should be opposite. Say, if you have an array
> on the stack, then I'd like to take a slice of it and send it to a function
> to compute a sum(). But, I don't want the type system to prevent me from
> doing it because the author of sum() forgot to add "scope" to the parameter.
>
> What is the difference between a function that is annotated as "pure" and a
> function where all input is "scope"? This is backwards!

D has attribute inference, that's like, a thing now.
Theoretically, the compiler may be able to determine that a reference
does not escape, and infer the 'scope' attribute, in many cases. This
would be consistent with other attributes.


> Function signatures should not say "I am playing nice…", that should be the
> default. They should say "watch out, I'm stealing your stuff!".

But that's already a concrete pattern throughout D. To do something
otherwise would be an unexpected deviation from the norm.

For the record, I agree with you, but that boat sailed a very long
time ago. We must now stick to the pattern that's in place.


> Many C++ frameworks look really ugly, but with C++14 I think I shall be able
> to make my own code look acceptable (readable).

I don't see anything in C++11/14/17 that looks like they'll salvage
the language from the sea of barely decipherable template mess and
endless boilerplate. It seems they're getting deeper into that
madness, not less.
I spent the last 2 days doing some string processing in C++...
possibly the least fun I've ever had programming. Somehow I used to
find it tolerable!