dip1000: why can't the addressee come into existence later?

[Neia Neutuladh]

On Sat, 10 Nov 2018 16:25:40 +0000, Stanislav Blinov wrote:
> Yep, you just over-simplified the first case.

It is too simple to clearly illustrate why the code is invalid, but not so 
simple that the compiler accepts that code.

> Consider:
> 
> int* p;
> {
>      int i;
>      p = &i;
> }
> *p = 42;

In that example, the scope for i ends before the scope for p ends. It's 
not at all surprising that that code is wrong. In the other examples I 
gave, both i and p go out of scope at the same time.

But there's a total ordering for when variables' lifetimes end, which is 
the key (and non-obvious) difference between the two.