pass-by-ref semantics for structs (was Deque impl.)

[monarch_dodra]

On Thursday, 31 January 2013 at 16:17:09 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
wrote:
> On Thursday, January 31, 2013 10:39:46 Andrei Alexandrescu 
> wrote:
>> On 1/31/13 10:27 AM, monarch_dodra wrote:
>> > On Thursday, 31 January 2013 at 15:12:52 UTC, Andrei 
>> > Alexandrescu wrote:
>> >> As far as I can tell classes have the same problem.
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> Andrei
>> > 
>> > Regarding classes, would there be any chance of being to 
>> > create a class
>> > instance that isn't a child of "object"?
>> 
>> Using classes entails buying into an entire object model with 
>> its own
>> pluses and minuses. Adding classes that don't inherit Object 
>> would wreck
>> havoc all over the place.
>
> And what would be the gain, anyway?
>
> I don't understand what the downside is to having a single base 
> object besides
> the issues with toString, toHash, opEquals, and opCmp. And we 
> decided to
> remove all of them from Object (though no actual progress has 
> been made beyond
> the decision), and with those gone, Object will have next to 
> nothing on it
> anyway. But not having Object be the base of all classes would 
> definitely cause
> quite a few problems.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

I guess it still has the vtable and monitor.

In any case, the question was mostly asked to "test the waters" 
in regards to "class usage best practice", and to probe the 
consequences of such a change.

Please disregard the question in further discussion.