DIP53 and DIP49 (ver2) - New definitions for qualified constructors and postblits

[Maxim Fomin]

On Thursday, 19 December 2013 at 12:49:55 UTC, Francesco 
Cattoglio wrote:
> On Thursday, 19 December 2013 at 11:22:59 UTC, Maxim Fomin 
> wrote:
>> void main()
>> {
>>   immutable int* ptr = foo();
>>   writeln(*ptr); // it is 0
>>   GC.collect();
>>   writeln(*ptr); // it is 1 now
>> }
>>
>> Your proposal suffers from same issue. Although idea of unique 
>> can be worthy, without escape analysis it is another hole.
>
> Wow... that looks really unsettling.
> But as far as I can tell, you are declaring an immutable 
> pointer, and the pointer itself never changes. After all, this 
> looks correct. Or am I missing something from the language 
> specifics?

Actually it is fully immutable, which means that both pointer and 
pointee are fixed. This is not the case and that's why it is a 
hole.