auto ref is on the docket

Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Thu Jun 25 03:19:45 PDT 2015


On Thursday, 25 June 2015 at 08:10:06 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
> On Wednesday, 24 June 2015 at 17:47:51 UTC, Namespace wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 24 June 2015 at 17:45:15 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 24 June 2015 at 09:54:01 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, 24 June 2015 at 09:26:49 UTC, Temtaime wrote:
>>>>> Simply give a possibility to "ref in" allowing use rvalues.
>>>>
>>>> That has already been rejected.
>>>
>>> Then we need to reconsider it. If that was several years ago, 
>>> much has changed since then.
>>>
>>> Can you point me to that decision? Who made it, and on what 
>>> basis? I can't find anything in the threads linked in 
>>> http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP36
>>
>> Read the thread: 
>> http://forum.dlang.org/thread/ylebrhjnrrcajnvtthtt@forum.dlang.org?page=1
>
> Thanks. There was no link to this thread on the wiki page.
>
> But I can't really find a definite rejection in it, in the 
> sense of someone with authority saying "This DIP is rejected". 
> The closest I can find is Andrei making some vague statements 
> about what is proposed being a new feature (I don't know though 
> whether this is an argument against the DIP), and it being 
> unsafe because scope is not implemented (which was true at the 
> time, but we now have DIP25 as a mechanism, albeit incomplete).
>
> If you can find anything definite, can you please add it to the 
> wiki page? I.e. officially rejected by NN on YYYY-MM-DD 
> (including link), summary of the arguments for rejection, etc.

If it helps, at dconf, two years ago, when Manu tried to 
repeatedly convince Walter and Andrei to have scope ref do 
something similar to what we're talking about auto ref doing, 
Walter and Andrei repeatedly shot it down. They had no interest 
in having scope ref as any kind of special attribute. So, as of 
the beginning of May 2013 (which was less than a month after what 
the DIP lists as its last modification date), it was being 
refused by Walter and Andrei in person. And if you look at its 
revision history, Dicebot (who is one of the two authors of the 
DIP) has marked it as rejected.

- Jonathan M Davis


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list