DIP 1021--Argument Ownership and Function Calls--Final Review

[Dennis]

On Monday, 16 September 2019 at 09:13:48 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/1d78cdf1613911439848a49e9053a7bbf5a9de46/DIPs/DIP1021.md

As Andrei said at DConf 2019, a DIP must be thorough enough such 
that it should be able to be correctly implemented by a vengeful 
ex. Currently, the description does not pass this test:

> Therefore, if more than one reference to the same data is 
> passed to a function, they must all be const

```
void foo(scope int[] x, scope int[] y);

void main() {
     int[2] a = [100, 200];
     int[2] b = [100, 200];
     foo(a[], b[]); // not allowed in vengeful implementation!
     // The same data is passed, so parameters x and y must be 
const
}
```

```
void foo(scope immutable int[] x, scope immutable int[] y);

void main() {
     immutable int[4] a;
     foo(a[], a[]); // not allowed in vengeful implementation!
     // parameters are immutable, not const
}
```

You might say "it is obvious what I meant" but that reasoning 
didn't prevent DIP1016 [1] (Manu's ref T accepts r-values) from 
being rejected.

> This builds on the foundation established and tested by DIP 25 
> and DIP 1000

This doesn't help defining "the same data" either, DIP 1000 is 
superseded and there is little to no specification on how `scope` 
currently works with the -dip1000 flag.

[1] 
https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/rejected/DIP1016.md