DIP69 - Implement scope for escape proof references

[Dicebot via Digitalmars-d]

On Saturday, 20 December 2014 at 21:39:44 UTC, Walter Bright 
wrote:
> On 12/19/2014 9:44 PM, Dicebot wrote:
>> Such notion of "view" requires at least some elements of 
>> transitivity to be
>> practical in my opinion.
>
> I have no idea how "some elements of transitivity" can even 
> work. It's either transitive or its not. Please don't think of 
> scope in terms of ownership, ownership is an orthogonal issue.

.. and here I was about you to do exactly the same :P What in 
example I show makes you think of ownership?

When I was speaking about "some elements of transitivity" I was 
thinking in a way of keeping scope storage class but transitively 
applying same restrictions to all data accessible through it AS 
IF it had scope storage class on its own - while still making 
illegal to use scope as a separate type qualifier.

>> Also with my definition in mind your example of tree
>> that stores scope nodes makes absolutely no sense unless whole 
>> tree itself is
>> scoped (and nodes are thus scoped transitively). Such view is 
>> always assumes
>> worst case about ownership and shouldn't persist in any form 
>> (as that would
>> require some serious ownership tracking).
>
> This is definitely conflating scope and ownership.

No, it is exactly the other way around. The very point of what I 
am saying is that you DOESN'T CARE about ownership as long as 
worst case scenario is assumed.   I have zero idea why you 
identify it is conflating as ownership when it is explicitly 
designed to be distinct.