Explicit keyword for "plain old local variable" storage class?

[Norbert Nemec]

Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
> "Norbert Nemec" <Norbert at Nemec-online.de> wrote in message 
> news:e596k7$2k4o$1 at digitaldaemon.com...
> 
>> Maybe that common confusion could be lifted by introducing a new storage
>> class (e.g. "local" or "var") indicating a "plain old local variable".
>> This would be the default for any variable declared with a type and
>> without storage class, but it would be useful in declaring a
>> type-induced variable that is not intended to be an auto variable.
> 
> We already have it; it's called "auto"  ;)  That's exactly what auto means - 
> a plain old variable, one which is not accessible once the scope ends.  It's 
> already the default storage class for variables declared without one. 
> That's why we use auto to indicate type inference for most variables, 
> because they're plain old local variables, and that's the default storage 
> class.

Sorry, but I disagree:
before type inference came along, "auto" already had a meaning. It said:
"This is *not* a plain old local variable but one that is deleted
automatically at end of scope." (In your terms, "auto" always meant RAII
in D)

> The problem is just when it comes to auto classes.  Either we come up with a 
> new keyword for the behavior of auto classes, i.e. "raii":
> 
> raii Foo f = new Foo();
> 
> // Type inference
> raii g = new Goo();

What you suggest here, is to change the meaning of "auto" and then
introduce a new keyword for what was "auto" before. At the moment,
"auto" means RAII. What we need is a keyword for non-RAII storage class.

Up to now, such a keyword was not necessary. With type inference, it
became necessary.