D array expansion and non-deterministic re-allocation

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

grauzone wrote:
> Denis Koroskin wrote:
>> Same here. FWIW, I strongly believe demise of T[new] was a step in a 
>> wrong direction, and I feel highly frustrated about it. It was one of 
>> the most anticipated features that was asked for *years*! And it's 
>> gone when it was so close to be implemented...
>>
>> The only more or less reasonable answer why T[new] "sucked" was:
>>
>> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 01:55:28 +0400, Andrei Alexandrescu 
>> <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:
>>> Returning a distinct type from .dup and ~ makes slices not closed 
>>> over these operations, a source of complication, confusion, and 
>>> bloating.
>>
>> I see no problem returning T[] when a slice is dup'ed or concatenated. 
>> That's what always happened anyway.
> 
> I think Walter and Andrei just felt like many people do when they have 
> to adapt to a new environment or some other big change: the new thing 
> "sucks", you feel bad, you thought "the past was better", you want go go 
> back. Also, you don't see the advantages, you only get riled up by the 
> disadvantage (because _every_ change has disadvantages; that's only 
> natural).
> 
> So they just threw it away.
> 
> Also, I don't quite understand why they find the new semantics caused by 
> the append-caching simpler. Even Bartosz got worried about the 
> undeterministic behavior of this.

However flattering the attention to Walter's and my psychology could be, 
it may be difficult to find supporting evidence for the theory above.

Andrei