compiler support added for precise GC

[Francois Chabot]

On Tuesday, 17 April 2012 at 05:34:17 UTC, Kapps wrote:
> On Monday, 16 April 2012 at 16:53:53 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 4/16/2012 9:40 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>>> Regardless of how the runtime reflection is generated, by a 
>>> library or the
>>> compiler, it needs to be available to all types.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> (I can see the point for a dynamic language, but not a static 
>> one.)
>
> Because you can't take into consideration every possible use 
> for your code. You have to be liberal, because even ONE class 
> forgetting to enable reflection will completely break someone's 
> entire system. For example, you can't serialize just because 
> ONE random collection forgot to enable reflection. As it is 
> right now, the vast majority of the standard library would have 
> to have reflection enabled because the use case is unknown. 
> This is how it would be for most libraries as well. You don't 
> know where your code will be used when writing a library, so 
> you have to play it safe. Opt out is MUCH better than opt in. 
> People who want reflection understand the costs associated with 
> it. People who want reflection build programs where these costs 
> are acceptable.

That's going WAY overboard. An argument can be made about 
subclass discovery, but it's pretty darn easy to make every 
aggregated type of a given reflected class be opted-in 
automatically and recursively.