More radical ideas about gc and reference counting

[Manu via Digitalmars-d]

Missed one... >_<

On 7 May 2014 01:46, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d
<digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:
> On 5/5/14, 11:39 PM, Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>
>> Well, in phobos, just approve 'exp' which has been raised countless
>> times. I've got contributions that should be in exp, but instead,
>> they're in limbo, and I've lost momentum and motivation since their
>> completion is blocked by other issues, and I'm receiving no feedback
>> from field testing.
>
>
> I'm fine with adding an "exp" package to phobos if you believe that that's
> what's stopping things from happening. But do you really?

Maybe. Surely I've demonstrated that I think it's a definite
possibility, and worth a shot.
But I don't see why this is my question to answer. This requires consensus.

It's been raised and rejected numerous times in the past... why? And
why would those that rejected it previously have changed their mind
right now?
This isn't meant to be a discussion between the 2 of us.