draft proposal for ref counting in D

[deadalnix]

On Thursday, 10 October 2013 at 02:19:02 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> >
> > @system code could, but it'd be extremely uneasy doing such
> calls unless I am the one in charge of that code and can make 
> sure the base function will never store the (unretained) 
> pointer somewhere it shouldn't now and in the future. An 
> misstep here and you get memory corruption. Seriously, I don't 
> think @system code should allow implicit conversions to the 
> base class, it should be explicit.
>
> It's a worthy point.
>

It means OOP is completely broken with that design.