DIP 1021--Argument Ownership and Function Calls--Final Review

Exil Exil at gmall.com
Wed Sep 18 15:53:18 UTC 2019

On Wednesday, 18 September 2019 at 07:38:49 UTC, Walter Bright 
> On 9/16/2019 9:47 AM, Olivier FAURE wrote:
>> Sincere question: do you want people to experiment with it? If 
>> so, in what way? People have already come up with holes in 
>> your proposal, and you've essentially said that you didn't 
>> mind them; so what would people confirming that these holes 
>> still exist in the preview implementation change?
> It's not a complete solution. That'll be for the @live 
> proposal. But it does solve the more immediate problem of 
> unsafety with refcounted objects.

Now the DIP makes sense, as to why it doesn't make sense. Because 
it's not complete. It solves no problem because of this, as 
someone else has showed. You can't review something that isn't 
complete as the author will just argue that any problems will be 
"fixed" in the future. There's nothing more to say... Yew haw 

More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list