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

[Timon Gehr]

On 19.09.19 11:09, Olivier FAURE wrote:
> 
> No, Rust isn't the only possible model for memory safety. 
> Reference-counting isn't the only possible memory-safe data structure. 
> The "foobar(rcObject, &rcObject.data)" problem that has been floated 
> around for a few years isn't the only challenge to implementing a safe 
> GC-less model.
> 
> The reason I'm strongly opposed to this DIP, is that it should be based 
> on a thorough analysis of possible memory safety models, advantages of 
> different models over each other, and what model would be most suitable 
> for D and why.
> 
> Instead, it acts like the analysis was already done and everybody agreed 
> the Rust model was the best and all that's left is implementation details.

I'd be happy and excited if that was the extent of the problems! @live 
is not the Rust model! Rust does not have a language built-in notion of 
unique pointer, and it is not necessary (nor sufficient) to have it if 
your borrowing works. Mixing up GC pointers and unique pointers is a 
terrible idea. Why is @live trying to _remove_ GC from D?