Garbage Collector?

[Moritz Maxeiner via Digitalmars-d]

On Saturday, 29 April 2017 at 09:24:35 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
wrote:
> On Saturday, 29 April 2017 at 08:45:26 UTC, Moritz Maxeiner 
> wrote:
>> On Saturday, 29 April 2017 at 07:26:45 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
>>> I don't doubt that, but the implicit generalization is 
>>> "multiple pointer types are necessarily always a royal PITA".
>>
>> The "implicit generalization" is your interpretation, though.
>
> No, it was brought up in a thread as an argument against having 
> multiple pointer types.

It was brought up in that thread as an example of multiple 
pointer types having (I assume unintended) negative consequences. 
That's not the same as implying that *all* occurrences of 
multiple pointer types *will* have such negative consequences; at 
most, it implies that you have to be very careful when designing 
them, so as to avoid such consequences (and this latter part is 
*my* interpretation).

> The thread was not about near/far pointers or segmented memory 
> models.

I am aware; it was originally about the viability of automatic 
reference counting in D, and its potential benefits/drawbacks 
compared to garbage collection.