DMD 0.177 release

[Pragma]

Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
> "Lutger" <lutger.blijdestijn at gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:elmjl8$1tdg$1 at digitaldaemon.com...
> 
>> About this optimization business, is this an issue? Since Walter stated 
>> that such copies are optimized away (trivially?), my assumption was that 
>> the syntax as it is now relies on this optimization being present. Or to 
>> put it in other words, static opCall would not be supported if there was 
>> no such optimization possible.
>> Perhaps it is similar to how the use of functors with templates in C++ 
>> rely on inlining, STL would be so slow without such optimizations.
>>
>> My question is if it is reasonable to make this assumption or can you put 
>> compiler optimization aside?
> 
> The impression I get from Walter is that _eeeevery_ compiler has 
> optimization, so it's a nonissue.  :P
> 
> Optimization should be an entirely optional pass.  Making language features 
> rely on it seems hackish at best. 

Exactly.

Moreover, it's not always possible to inline or optimize even by a 
compiler that can do it well, so it *must* be optional by definition.

Also there are some rather significant "edge cases" involved here.  What 
about libraries, or reflection?

-- 
- EricAnderton at yahoo