DIP 1021--Argument Ownership and Function Calls--Final Review
anonymous at example.com
Mon Sep 16 11:05:21 UTC 2019
On 16.09.19 11:13, Mike Parker wrote:
> The current revision of the DIP for this review is located here:
Walter hasn't changed a single thing, so the criticism from the last
round still applies.
I'll repeat mine (and maybe elaborate on it): The DIP does not show what
benefit it brings. In the Rationale section, it presents buggy code. In
the Description section, it proposes a language change. But it fails to
show how the change would help prevent the bug.
In particular, "the checks would only be enforced for @safe code", but
the bad code in the given example calls `free` which means it can be
@trusted at best. So it seems like the DIP wouldn't apply to its own
More information about the Digitalmars-d