On heap segregation, GC optimization and @nogc relaxing

[Dicebot via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 4 December 2014 at 23:22:04 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
> I don't think this is solving the same problem as Marc's 
> proposal so I'm not sure how comparing them make sense. Marc's 
> proposal is about manipulating data without having ownership. 
> This defines ownership.

Indeed. But both combined add too much complexity to be feasible 
and thus we need to decide what problems are more important to 
solve. I think one from Marc has wider application while elements 
of yours can be more suitable as hidden implementation detail. 
Though now there is also DIP69 and I need to seriously shake them 
all through my head before having any true opinion :P

> This proposal add some complexity, but I do think this is a 
> winner. Right now we have various type qualifier (mutable, 
> const, immutable, shared, const shared, inout, inout shared). 
> This come at a cost, and, ultimately, as the proposal interact 
> with this, you want to compare the total complexity with the 
> total benefit.

I respectfully can't agree that shared qualifier truly exists in 
current language implementation. Thus perspective is a bit 
different. Also const/inout don't actually tell anything about 
how underlying data is managed and serve as secondary utility 
qualifiers.