Opportunities for D

[Wyatt via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 9 July 2014 at 23:58:39 UTC, H. S. Teoh via 
Digitalmars-d wrote:
>
> So here's a first stab at refining (and extending) what 'scope' 
> should be:
>
In general, I like it, but can scopedness be inferred?  The 
impression I get from this is we're supposed to manually annotate 
every scoped everything, which IMO kind of moots the benefits in 
a broad sense.

If it _cannot_ be inferred (even if imperfectly), then I wonder 
if it doesn't make more sense to invert the proposed default and 
require annotation when scope restrictions need to be eased.  The 
ideal seems like it could be a major blow against non-local 
errors, but relying on convention isn't desirable.

Of course, in fairness, I may be misunderstanding the application 
of this entirely...?

-Wyatt