Smart pointers instead of GC?

[Dicebot]

On Sunday, 2 February 2014 at 14:12:39 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> On Sunday, 2 February 2014 at 10:53:36 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>> What do you think about my `scope` proposal? It does not 
>> introduce any new syntax and should be somewhat in line with 
>> existing reference escape analysis.
>
> What's the link to your proposal? I think I've read it before 
> and liked it (scope would rock) but not sure it is the same 
> thing on my mind.

There is no DIP for it, if you mean that. rvalue reference DIP 
has been implying it but mostly it is just short generalization 
for info already spread around the docs: 
http://forum.dlang.org/post/uopnrbrjwkxgejbcojxa@forum.dlang.org

It boils down to storage class that binds lifetime of entity to 
scope + qualifier that guarantees that no references/pointers to 
that data can be possibly stored at the end of scope in question. 
May need attribute inference to become usable with Phobos though.

I have originally wanted to write it down in DIP form but at that 
time Andrei has said that implementing scope is out of question. 
Wondering if his opinion has changed :)