What if D would require * for reference types?

[BCS]

Hello Walter,

> 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.
> 

There is a precedent in C for T* being legal as the type of a variable or 
intermediate value but T not being (for some T): function pointers.

If you forbid the use of the bare Class type (possibly with the exception 
of as an alias for meta coding reasons) your concern becomes moot.