• %u <wfunction hotmail.com> Jan 31 2011
• spir <denis.spir gmail.com> Jan 31 2011
• "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> Jan 31 2011

%u <wfunction hotmail.com> writes:

Hi,

I just realized something: If the delete keyword is being removed because it's
dangerous, and if the scope storage class is being removed because of the same
dangling reference problem, how come

    int[] global_var;
    void foo(int[] args...) { global_var = args; }

isn't considered to be just as dangerous, and therefore also being removed?
(Or perhaps this is a bug, and we should always add the scope modifier so that
it prevents reference escaping?)

Thanks! :)

spir <denis.spir gmail.com> writes:

On 01/31/2011 11:10 AM, %u wrote:
 Hi,

 I just realized something: If the delete keyword is being removed because it's
 dangerous, and if the scope storage class is being removed because of the same
 dangling reference problem, how come

      int[] global_var;
      void foo(int[] args...) { global_var = args; }

 isn't considered to be just as dangerous, and therefore also being removed?
 (Or perhaps this is a bug, and we should always add the scope modifier so that
 it prevents reference escaping?)

 Thanks! :)


IIRC, I had a bug because of this, precisely (except for obj.member instead of 
global_var).

Denis
-- 
_________________
vita es estrany
spir.wikidot.com

"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:

On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 14:15:18 -0500, spir <denis.spir gmail.com> wrote:

 On 01/31/2011 11:10 AM, %u wrote:
 Hi,

 I just realized something: If the delete keyword is being removed  
 because it's
 dangerous, and if the scope storage class is being removed because of  
 the same
 dangling reference problem, how come

      int[] global_var;
      void foo(int[] args...) { global_var = args; }

 isn't considered to be just as dangerous, and therefore also being  
 removed?
 (Or perhaps this is a bug, and we should always add the scope modifier  
 so that
 it prevents reference escaping?)

 Thanks! :)


 IIRC, I had a bug because of this, precisely (except for obj.member  
 instead of global_var).


Yes, I remember that one.

I would say we can't really get rid of it or change the way it works (it's  
just way too awesome to remove).  All we could possibly do ATM is make it  
un- safe.

Same goes for referencing a stack-allocated fixed-size array:

void foo(int[] args) { global_var = args;}

void bar()
{
int[5] blah;
foo2(blah[]);
}

-Steve