GCs in the news

[Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d]

On 7/17/2014 3:16 PM, Dicebot wrote:
> On Thursday, 17 July 2014 at 22:06:01 UTC, Brad Anderson wrote:
>> I agreed with this for awhile but following the conversation here
>> <https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/2149> I'm more inclined
>> to think we should be adding lazy versions of functions where possible rather
>> than versions with OutputRange parameters. It's more flexible that way and can
>> result in even fewer allocations than even OutputRange parameters would have
>> (i.e. you can have chains of lazy operations and only allocate on the final
>> step, or not at all in some cases).
>>
>> Laziness isn't appropriate or possible everywhere but it's much easier to go
>> from lazy to eager than the other way around.
>>
>>> [...]
>
> This is not comparable. Lazy input range based solutions do not make it possible
> to change allocation strategy, they simply defer the allocation point. Ideally
> both are needed.

They move the allocation point to the top level, rather than the bottom or 
intermediate level.