Escape analysis (full scope analysis proposal)

[Robert Jacques]

On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 11:01:35 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer  
<schveiguy at yahoo.com> wrote:

> "Michel Fortin" wrote
>> On 2008-10-28 23:52:04 -0400, "Robert Jacques" <sandford at jhu.edu> said:
>>
>>> I've run across some academic work on ownership types which seems
>>> relevant  to this discussion on share/local/scope/noscope.
>>
>> I haven't read the paper yet, but the overview seems to go in the same
>> direction as I was thinking.
> [snip]
>
> This is exactly the kind of thing I DON'T want to have.  Here, you have  
> to
> specify everything, even though the compiler is also doing the work, and
> making sure it matches.  Tack on const modifiers, shared modifiers, and  
> pure
> functions and there's going to be more decorations on function signatures
> than there are parameters.
>
> Note that especially this scope stuff will be required more often than  
> the
> others.
>
> I'd much rather have either no checks, or have the compiler (or a lint  
> tool)
> do all the work to tell me if anything escapes.
>
> -Steve

Note that one of a major points in the Pedigree paper is the static type  
inference, so you don't have to specify everything.