gc vs explicit

[Dave]

Sean Kelly wrote:
> Dave wrote:
>> Sean Kelly wrote:
>>> Try explicitly calling _gc.fullCollect() between iterations of the 
>>> inner loop, and disabling the GC explicitly there.  Manipulation of 
>>> the GC for performance-critical areas is an important and intentional 
>>> feature.
>>>
>>
>> With that in mind... What if some of the GC API were built-in to the 
>> language? This could be one of those areas that would set D apart as a 
>> lower-level, performance orientated language. If a GC implementation 
>> didn't support something, it would be stubbed for portability. 
>> Likewise anything not covered explicitly by a built-in could be 
>> covered by an import.
>>
>> Specifically:
>>
>> gcFullCollect()
>> gcGenCollect()
>> gcDisable()
>> gcEnable()
>>
>> or some such.
> 
> Phobos already has std.gc for exactly this purpose.  Or are you 
> suggesting some of these features should be added as keywords, or 
> perhaps automatically available, similar to the declaration of Object 
> and Exception?
> 

Yes, that way those optimization 'hints' would be codified into the language itself (like register 
in C or inline in C++).

The goal would be to lower the barrier as much as possible ('encourage the use of') and give D 
something codified that most other languages don't have.

You know, taking this one step further for convenience and safety could give us:

Replace:
 >> gcDisable()
 >> gcEnable()

with a built-in for:
     std.gc.disable;
     scope(exit) std.gc.enable;

usage:

void foo()
{
     scopeGcDisable;
     for(...){ ... }
}

> 
> Sean