Are there any plans to D compilers to use recent DIP-1000 to infer scoped destruction of GC-allocated data such as in the following case:

T sum(T)(in T[] x) // x cannot escape scope of `sum`
{
    /// calculate and return sum of `x` ...
}

double f(size_t n)
{
    auto x = new int[n]; // scoped (deallocation) should be inferred
    auto y = sum(x); // cannot alias `x`
    return y;
}

I believe this would make D more competitive against Rust's and C++'s (more) deterministic RAII memory management.

How would this interact with explicit scope-qualification of `x`?

On Thursday, 30 November 2017 at 16:31:25 UTC, Nordlöw wrote:
> Are there any plans to D compilers to use recent DIP-1000 to infer scoped destruction of GC-allocated data such as in the following case:
>
> T sum(T)(in T[] x) // x cannot escape scope of `sum`
> {
>     /// calculate and return sum of `x` ...
> }
>
> double f(size_t n)
> {
>     auto x = new int[n]; // scoped (deallocation) should be inferred
>     auto y = sum(x); // cannot alias `x`
>     return y;
> }
>
> I believe this would make D more competitive against Rust's and C++'s (more) deterministic RAII memory management.
>
> How would this interact with explicit scope-qualification of `x`?

The problem with this; as with most types of inference is the time it can take.
And the number of false negatives.

On Thursday, 30 November 2017 at 16:50:02 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
> On Thursday, 30 November 2017 at 16:31:25 UTC, Nordlöw wrote:
>> Are there any plans to D compilers to use recent DIP-1000 to infer scoped destruction of GC-allocated data such as in the following case:
>>
>> T sum(T)(in T[] x) // x cannot escape scope of `sum`
>> {
>>     /// calculate and return sum of `x` ...
>> }
>>
>> double f(size_t n)
>> {
>>     auto x = new int[n]; // scoped (deallocation) should be inferred
>>     auto y = sum(x); // cannot alias `x`
>>     return y;
>> }
>>
>> I believe this would make D more competitive against Rust's and C++'s (more) deterministic RAII memory management.
>>
>> How would this interact with explicit scope-qualification of `x`?
>
> The problem with this; as with most types of inference is the time it can take.
> And the number of false negatives.

Is there a formal definition of the complexity of such an inference?

On Thursday, 30 November 2017 at 16:31:25 UTC, Nordlöw wrote:
> How would this interact with explicit scope-qualification of `x`?

That would allow the compiler to avoid GC allocation for x. It seems essentially the same case as Walter describes here:
http://forum.dlang.org/post/ofo9f5$2bt7$1@digitalmars.com

On Monday, 4 December 2017 at 16:03:50 UTC, Nick Treleaven wrote:
> On Thursday, 30 November 2017 at 16:31:25 UTC, Nordlöw wrote:
>> How would this interact with explicit scope-qualification of `x`?
>
> That would allow the compiler to avoid GC allocation for x. It seems essentially the same case as Walter describes here:
> http://forum.dlang.org/post/ofo9f5$2bt7$1@digitalmars.com

Nice. Thanks.