Let's get the semantic around closure fixed.

[Ola Fosheim Grostad]

On Thursday, 20 May 2021 at 11:01:56 UTC, Petar Kirov 
[ZombineDev] wrote:
> On Thursday, 20 May 2021 at 09:42:20 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grostad 
> wrote:
> For past past 5-7 years, I can't think of a single new language 
> feature that required the GC. We have been going the @nogc / 
> DasBetterC road long enough (*). I think we shouldn't "skip leg 
> day" any more and we should improve a bit the high-level side 
> of D. Failing that, we should remove heap-allocated closures 
> from the language as it brings more harm to keep them working 
> wrong than not having them at all.
>
> (*) Obviously, I don't mean we should stop improving in that 
> direction (quite the opposite), but that we can afford to 
> improve in other directions as well, without diminishing our 
> current strengths.

But delegates have to work without a GC too, and C++ types dont 
like hidden allocations at all. What they do instead is utilizing 
template parameters to receive the lambda, so effctively the 
closure is stored in the "delegate".

The more I think about this the more I dislike separate 
compilation (to asm, to IR is ok). If you ditch that maybe you 
could use static analysis and store the closure in the delegate 
object.