Is the address-of operator (&) really needed?

[Artur Skawina]

On 06/01/12 19:19, Sandeep Datta wrote:
>>
>> 1. It's needed so that you can call it when calling C code.
>>
> 
> Why can't we just use information from the C function signature to determine when an address needs to be passed? Why is manual intervention required here?
> 
>> 2. Just because ref is often better than a pointer doesn't mean that it's
>> never valuable to be able to pass a pointer to a variable.
> 
> Passing a pointer may be useful but IMO we should restrict such things to the unsafe context.
> 
>>
>> 3. ref doesn't work with variadic templates very well. Take a look a
>> std.getopt.getopt. It takes pointers, not refs, and there isn't a way to make
>> it take refs.
>>
> 
> Is it because getopt() is a C function? If it is see my reply to your point #1. I'll admit I do not know enough D to understand what you are saying, some explanation will be helpful.
> 
>> 4. & is useful for getting function pointers.
> 
> What does the function name represent when not used with an ampersand? If it doesn't represent anything then I think the language can be changed to yield an address directly without an ampersand.
> 

   import std.stdio;
   @property f() { writeln("oops"); return 0; }
   void main() { auto p = f; }

artur