DIP1000 scope inference proposal

[Walter Bright]

On 10/26/2022 6:26 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> Please no! We can allocate on the stack by explicitly requesting it:
> 
> ```d
> int[3] = [1, 2, 3];
> ```
> 
> The issue is the DRYness of it. This has been proposed before, just:
> 
> ```d
> int[$] = [1, 2, 3];
> ```

How would this be done:

     foo([1,2,3] + a)

i.e. using an array literal in places other than an initialization?


> If we are going to fix something, let's fix this! It's backwards compatible too.
> 
> If anything, the compiler can just punt and say all array literals that aren't 
> immediately assigned to static arrays are allocated on the heap. Then it's 
> consistent.

And inefficient.


> Allocating array literals on the heap is *awesome*, please don't change that! D 
> is one of the best learning languages for high-performance code because you 
> don't have to worry at all about memory management out of the box. I'm actually 
> OK with backends using stack allocations because it can prove they aren't 
> escaping, why can't we just rely on that?

I thought your test case showed the problem with that :-/