www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.bugs - [Issue 5112] New: scope is deprecated, but this is not mentioned in the specification

reply d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5112

           Summary: scope is deprecated, but this is not mentioned in the
                    specification
           Product: D
           Version: unspecified
          Platform: Other
        OS/Version: Other
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: websites
        AssignedTo: nobody puremagic.com
        ReportedBy: peter.alexander.au gmail.com


--- Comment #0 from Peter Alexander <peter.alexander.au gmail.com> 2010-10-24
03:52:59 PDT ---
See title. The scope keyword is to be deprecated, but this is mentioned no
where in the specification.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Oct 24 2010
next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5112


Stewart Gordon <smjg iname.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |smjg iname.com


--- Comment #1 from Stewart Gordon <smjg iname.com> 2010-10-24 09:47:47 PDT ---
A *specification* should not list planned future changes at all.  Besides, such
a list cannot satisfy any objective standard for completeness.

And could you please post a link to Walter's message on what you're on about?

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Oct 24 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5112



--- Comment #2 from Peter Alexander <peter.alexander.au gmail.com> 2010-10-24
11:09:35 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #1)
 A *specification* should not list planned future changes at all.  Besides, such
 a list cannot satisfy any objective standard for completeness.
 
 And could you please post a link to Walter's message on what you're on about?
Here's a relevant link: http://www.digitalmars.com/pnews/read.php?server=news.digitalmars.com&group=digitalmars.D&artnum=114064 Andrei - "Walter plans to change the documentation to reflect the demise of delete and scope storage class." I agree to some extent that planned changes should not necessarily be in the specification, but they definitely need to be somewhere, and I see no harm in at least putting a note in the specification that these features are scheduled for deprecation. Currently, the only way to know about the status of scope and delete is to be a regular on the news groups. This is, of course, unacceptable. There needs to be some authoritative reference for people to refer to, so that people can learn the language without reading the news groups. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Oct 24 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5112



--- Comment #3 from Stewart Gordon <smjg iname.com> 2010-10-24 18:24:17 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #2)
 Here's a relevant link: 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/pnews/read.php?server=news.digitalmars.com&group=digitalmars.D&artnum=114064
Far better to link to the archives. http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/Re_poll_about_delete_114014.html#N114064
 Andrei - "Walter plans to change the documentation to reflect the 
 demise of delete and scope storage class."
If it's just something Walter's said to somebody in personal communication, IMO it needs to be taken with at least a pinch of salt.
 I agree to some extent that planned changes should not necessarily 
 be in the specification, but they definitely need to be somewhere, 
 and I see no harm in at least putting a note in the specification 
 that these features are scheduled for deprecation.
Not without an indication of what its replacement is going to be.
 Currently, the only way to know about the status of scope and 
 delete is to be a regular on the news groups.
It's worse than that. The only way to know is to either happen to read this particular message in the newsgroups or be in the pattern of reading every message in detail. Besides, the scope keyword is three things: (a) a storage class (b) a class attribute (c) a means of doing scope guards So when you say "The scope keyword is to be deprecated", you really just mean "meaning (a) of scope is to be deprecated". -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Oct 24 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5112


Walter Bright <bugzilla digitalmars.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |bugzilla digitalmars.com


--- Comment #4 from Walter Bright <bugzilla digitalmars.com> 2012-01-19
20:04:28 PST ---
There's still talk about the proper role for scope, so I prefer to leave this
as is at the moment.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jan 19 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5112


Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jmdavisProg gmx.com


--- Comment #5 from Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> 2012-01-19 20:12:17
PST ---
I thought that it was already decided what part of scope was being kept. What's
left to decide on this?

In particular, as I understand it, it's definitive that scope on local
variables is going away and that std.typecons.Scoped is to be used instead. If
that is indeed the case, we really should at least update the compiler and the
docs to take that into account or people are going to keep using it and that
much more code will break when it's finally deprecated.

We really need to sort out whatever's left to sort out with this so that we can
reduce code breakage due to the resulting language changes.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jan 19 2012
prev sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5112


Jesse Phillips <Jesse.K.Phillips+D gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |Jesse.K.Phillips+D gmail.co
                   |                            |m


--- Comment #6 from Jesse Phillips <Jesse.K.Phillips+D gmail.com> 2012-02-23
19:09:56 PST ---
As Jonathan said, if we know scope for locals is going then it shouldn`t be
mentioned. It currently is under Scope Classes

http://dlang.org/class.html

Related bug:

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2120

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Feb 23 2012