important proposal: scope keyword for class members

[Sean Kelly]

Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Sean Kelly wrote:
>> John Simon wrote:
>>> I'd like to propose a new use for the 'scope' keyword within an 
>>> aggregate body.
>>>
>>> Members of class type declared with the scope keyword are allocated 
>>> not as references or pointers, but initialized directly inside the 
>>> container.  Instead of a default initializer of 'null', it will 
>>> initialize with the default constructor of the class, or an optional 
>>> assignment after the declaration. Any 'new [type]' within the 
>>> assignment will resolve to a simple call to the type's __ctor, 
>>> instead of a memory allocation.
>>
>> A while back, Walter said that he planned to do exactly this.  I'm not 
>> sure what the timetable is though, or if plans have changed.
> 
> I'd be happier if we investigated scope in classes as an ownership 
> mechanism. In-situ storage is nice, but ownership management is more 
> important.

Yeah, in-situ storage would just be a QOI feature like it is for scope 
variables at function level.  I agree that the logical effect of scope 
at class level is more important.