RFC: moving forward with @nogc Phobos

[Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d]

On 10/1/14, 1:56 PM, "Marc Schütz" <schuetzm at gmx.net>" wrote:
> On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 at 17:13:38 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 10/1/14, 8:48 AM, Oren Tirosh wrote:
>>> Bingo. Have some way to mark the function return type as a unique
>>> pointer.
>>
>> I'm skeptical about this approach (though clearly we need to explore
>> it for e.g. passing ownership of data across threads). For strings and
>> other "casual" objects I think we should focus on GC/RC strategies.
>> This is because people do things like:
>>
>> auto s = setExtension(s1, s2);
>>
>> and then attempt to use s as a regular variable (copy it etc). Making
>> s unique would make usage quite surprising and cumbersome.
>
> Sure? I already showed in an example how it is possible to chain calls
> seamlessly that return unique objects. The users would only notice it
> when they are trying to make a real copy (i.e. not borrowing). Do you
> think this happens frequently enough to be of concern?

I'd think so. -- Andrei