RFC: moving forward with @nogc Phobos

[Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d]

On 9/29/14, 5:29 AM, Dicebot wrote:
> Any assumption that library code can go away with some set of
> pre-defined allocation strategies is crap. This whole discussion was
> about how important it is to move allocation decisions to user code
> (ranges are just one tool to achieve that, Don has been presenting
> examples of how we do that with plain arrays in DConf 2014 talk).

That's making exactly the confusion I was - that memory allocation 
strategy is the same as memory management strategy.

> In that regard allocators + ranges are still the way to go in my
> opinion. Yes, sometimes those result in very hard to use API - providing
> GC-heavy but friendly alternatives for those shouldn't do any harm. But
> in general full decoupling of algorithms from allocations is necessary.
> If that makes D poor cousin of C++ we may have a learn few tricks from C++.

As long as things are trivial they can be done with relative ease, 
albeit with more pain. But consider e.g. the recent JSON library by 
Sönke. It needs to create a lookup data structure and return things like 
strings from it. What primitives do you think could it define?


Andrei