More radical ideas about gc and reference counting

[Paolo Invernizzi via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 2 May 2014 at 15:03:47 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> 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

I would also add one point, just because it is not so obvious: 
I'll be more than happy to review my company code, if the 
proposed solutions about finalisation in class/struct turn out to 
take D one step forward being a better programming language.

/Paolo