What if D would require * for reference types?

[Walter Bright]

Denis Koroskin wrote:
> What do you think? I understand it is unlikely to make its way into D2 
> (D3?), but is it sound? Do you think it's useless, or do you think that 
> additional consistency (and functionality) is worthwhile?

What this means is that classes will be usable as a value type, like in 
C++. In C++, this causes all sorts of trouble, as a value type and a 
reference type are fundamentally different things with different uses.