static arrays don't have indirections

[WalterBright]

No description provided.

[Geod24]

Looks like this is not related, according to the P.R.'s title ?

[MartinNowak]

Yes, we need to review #6321 first.

[Geod24]

This function is not @safe, hence scope is not enforced here. I got bit by this many times, hence why I so strongly argued for scope being enforced everywhere.

I would also add the following test cases:

int[3] test1 (scope int[] p) @safe { return p[0 .. 3]; }             // Do not error because there isn't any indirection
char*[3] test1 (scope char*[] p) @safe { return p[0 .. 3]; }   // Error here because there is an indirection

[MartinNowak]

Would it change the design to extend scope checks (without scope inference) to unsafe code later on?
If not we could defer this decision and discussion.
Added it to the scope/DIP1000 backlog https://trello.com/c/XT4RECah/96-spec-how-to-extend-scope-checks-to-unsafe-code.

[WalterBright]

int[3] test1 (scope int[] p) @safe { return p[0 .. 3]; }             // Do not error because there isn't any indirection

added

char*[3] test1 (scope char*[] p) @safe { return p[0 .. 3]; }   // Error here because there is an indirection

scope is not transitive, so the indirection is not covered by it.

[mathias-lang-sociomantic]

scope is not transitive, so the indirection is not covered by it.

So this should not error ? If so, please add the test case as well.
Also, abc is still missing @safe.

[WalterBright]

So this should not error ?

That's right.

If so, please add the test case as well. Also, abc is still missing @safe.

done