More radical ideas about gc and reference counting

[Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d]

On 5/2/14, 1:34 AM, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
> On Thursday, 1 May 2014 at 21:29:19 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 5/1/14, 1:19 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 01:03:06PM -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu via
>>> Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>>> On 5/1/14, 12:52 PM, "Nordlöw" wrote:
>>>>>>> into a class. I'm inclined to say that we should outright
>>>>>>> prohibit that,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That can't happen.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why is that?
>>>>
>>>> (1) Too much breakage, (2) would disallow a ton of correct code, (3)
>>>> no reasonable alternative to propose. We'd essentially hang our users
>>>> out to dry. -- Andrei
>>>
>>> Isn't this what we're already doing by (eventually) getting rid of class
>>> dtors?
>>
>> Not even close. (1) A lot less breakage, (2) disallowed code was
>> already not guaranteed to work, (3) reasonable alternatives exist.
>>
>> Andrei
>
> I have 165k lines of code to review for that change... I would not call
> it a minor breakage...

I didn't. I said a lot less that straight out disallowing struct 
members. -- Andrei