If T[new] is the container for T[], then what is the container for T[U]?

[Steve Schveighoffer]

On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 08:07:52 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

> It looks we can't make it with only T[]. We need a genuine container
> type, and T[new] was suggested. It would probably have value semantics.
> 
> T[U] seems to have the same problem. If T[U] is the range, then how do
> you call the container?
> 
> If we follow through with a no-garbage-collected option for the core
> types, then we also need to distinguish between a slice and its
> container. The fact that we (almost) got away with T[] being at the same
> time the container and the slice was that the garbage collector would
> collect all unused slices.
> 
> 
> Andrei

You are confusing the difference between T[] and T[U].  T[U] is a strange 
beast because it does not need to be new'd, but it acts completely like a 
reference type.  But T[U] *is* the container type.  What you should be 
asking is what is the *slice* type for T[U].  My answer would be that a 
slice type for a hashtable doesn't make sense.  We don't need AAs to be 
completely on par with normal arrays, so just leave them alone ;)

-Steve