Contradictory justification for status quo

[via Digitalmars-d]

On Saturday, 28 February 2015 at 10:40:32 UTC, bearophile wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu:
>
>> I'm following with interest the discussion "My Reference 
>> Safety System (DIP???)". Right now it looks like a lot of work 
>> - a long opener, subsequent refinements, good discussion. It 
>> also seems just that - there's work but there's no edge to it 
>> yet; right now a DIP along those ideas is more likely to be 
>> rejected than approved. But I certainly hope something good 
>> will come out of it.
>
> The second scope proposal looks simpler than the first:
> http://wiki.dlang.org/User:Schuetzm/scope2
>

Still working on it, but I think we're on the right track. Zach 
had some really good ideas.

> Later in Rust they have added some lifetime inference to reduce 
> the annotation burden in many cases.

I just modified Walter's RCArray to work with the new proposal. 
It looks almost identical, but now supports safe slicing. (It 
currently lacks a way to actually get an RCArray of a slice, but 
that can be added as an `alias this`). There's only one `scope` 
annotation in the entire code. Even though the proposal includes 
a `return` annotation, it's not needed in this case.

In general, if it works out like I imagine, there will be almost 
no annotations. They will only ever be necessary for function 
signatures, and then only in `@system` code, `extern`/`export` 
declarations, and occasionally for `@safe` functions. Everything 
else will just work. (@safe will become slightly stricter, but 
that's a good thing.)