More radical ideas about gc and reference counting

[Dicebot via Digitalmars-d]

On Monday, 5 May 2014 at 17:22:58 UTC, Marco Leise wrote:
> Am Mon, 5 May 2014 09:39:30 -0700
> schrieb "H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d"
> <digitalmars-d at puremagic.com>:
>
>> On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 03:55:12PM +0000, bearophile via 
>> Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> > Andrei Alexandrescu:
>> > 
>> > >I think the "needs to support BigInt" argument is not a 
>> > >blocker - we
>> > >can release std.rational to only support built-in integers, 
>> > >and then
>> > >adjust things later to expand support while keeping backward
>> > >compatibility. I do think it's important that BigInt 
>> > >supports
>> > >appropriate traits to be recognized as an integral-like 
>> > >type.
>> > 
>> > Bigints support is necessary for usable rationals, but I 
>> > agree this
>> > can't block their introduction in Phobos if the API is good 
>> > and
>> > adaptable to the successive support of bigints.
>> 
>> Yeah, rationals without bigints will overflow very easily, 
>> causing many
>> usability problems in user code.
>> 
>> 
>> > >If you, Joseph, or both would want to put std.rational 
>> > >again through
>> > >the review process I think it should get a fair shake. I do 
>> > >agree
>> > >that a lot of persistence is needed.
>> > 
>> > Rationals are rather basic (important) things, so a little of
>> > persistence is well spent here :-)
>> [...]
>> 
>> I agree, and support pushing std.rational through the queue. 
>> So, please
>> don't give up, we need it get it in somehow. :)
>> 
>> 
>> T
>
> That experimental package idea that was discussed months ago
> comes to my mind again. Add that thing as exp.rational and
> have people report bugs or shortcomings to the original
> author. When it seems to be usable by everyone interested it
> can move into Phobos proper after the formal review (that
> includes code style checks, unit tests etc. that mere users
> don't take as seriously).

And same objections still remain.