Go 1.5

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Monday, 21 September 2015 at 11:01:27 UTC, ZombineDev wrote:
> I prefer library-defined smart pointers than language magic, 
> because you can easily modify them to fit your needs. What D 
> needs is a way to enforce that the user can't get unmanaged 
> references to the underlying object managed by the smart 
> pointer.

That's ok. I've done that in my own prototype library by having a 
"movingptr!T" returned by doing "move(someuniqueptr)" and 
"borrowptr!T" returned by "borrow(...)". But checking is limited 
to runtime asserts in destructors in debug builds.

It is ok as a runtime hack... but not a competitive solution.

> The killer way to implement this in D is to NOT add complexity 
> in the compiler (and to change the whole language to some 
> imaginable perfect correct memory management system), but to 
> add away for the library writers to write extensible CTFE 
> checkers that enforce the smart pointer invariants at 
> compile-time.

That is most likely even more work than creating a language 
solution?