Discussion Thread: DIP 1042--ProtoObject--Community Review Round 1

[Timon Gehr]

On 11.01.22 21:44, Timon Gehr wrote:
> 
> 
>> you want to implement something more
>> esoteric, that's fine, you can define your own interface.
> 
> There we go. You think anything that does not fit those arbitrarily 
> defined interfaces is "esoteric". That's precisely my main issue. This 
> is not true. If someone's use case has to be dubbed "esoteric", it would 
> rather be to use qualifiers beyond `@safe` in object-oriented code.

BTW: `pure` toHash can also be rather problematic in case it returns the 
address of the object as an integer (as it currently does by default). 
Pure code should not depend on GC memory addresses.