DIP74 - where is at?

[deadalnix via Digitalmars-d]

On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 07:08:26 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
> On 10/11/15 7:25 AM, deadalnix wrote:
>> On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 02:01:09 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
>> wrote:
>>> AFAIK, Walter and Andrei are still in favor of something 
>>> that's at
>>> least similar to DIP 74. Andrei made a comment in a thread 
>>> just the
>>> other day that indicated that he was in favor of having a way 
>>> to build
>>> reference counting into classes. So, I don't know why you 
>>> think that
>>> it's not going to be implemented other than the fact that it 
>>> hasn't
>>> been implemented yet. It wouldn't surprise me if the DIP 
>>> needed some
>>> tweaking though.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, and that's quite ridiculous. I mean this is getting into 
>> ridiculous
>> ego battle.
>
> It's unlikely that adding inflammation to this would help too 
> much - sticking to the technical points is more helpful.
>
> You're saying that as far as you can tell you have made the 
> perfect argument in favor of your proposed approach (have you 
> written it up as a DIP?) and that essentially there is no 
> reasonable way your idea could not be accepted. If you failed 
> to raise the response you think that proposal deserves, getting 
> emotional about it can't possibly be more productive than 
> reiterating the technical point.
>
> We're all on the same boat. We want to make D better. Let's.
>
>
> Andrei

No I'm not saying I've made the perfect argument.

I'm saying that DIP 25 was implemented and showed that it was too 
limited. The various experiment with it showed that is wasn't 
enough (ref counted objects) or required to jump though a lot of 
hoops for somewhat disappointing result (ref counted arrays).

DIP74 is a direct result of DIP25 limitations. I think we should 
start by acknowledging that the DIP25 experiment was not a 
success before taking it for granted and proceed.

I do think a buffed up version of DIP25 would make DIP74 obsolete 
(or implementable as a library).