Proposal 2: Exceptions and @nogc

[Meta via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 11 April 2017 at 00:11:01 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 23:16:48 UTC, Meta wrote:
>> My knee jerk reaction is that it's a very bad thing that "new" 
>> means the same thing everywhere in the language (allocate and 
>> initialize some GC-managed memory), except for this one case.
>
> Actually, in addition to user defined overloads (which are 
> deprecated, granted), `new` also can mean stack allocation 
> already! See the `scope` storage class and scope classes.

I don't agree as you have to add `scope` for the class to be 
allocated on the stack.

> The language is free to optimize `new` as it sees fit. (IMO, 
> that's the only real justification for it even being a built in 
> language feature instead of an ordinary library function.) The 
> real changes in this proposal are:

Yes, but it must be done in such a way that a user never knows 
the difference. I have my doubts about whether replacing all heap 
allocations in `throw new` expressions will be as transparent. 
Actually it's already not as there are restrictions on catch 
blocks that catch refcounted Exceptions.