[Dlang-internal] DIP1000 discussion and testing: RC pointer snippet

[Dicebot via Dlang-internal]

On 10/16/2016 11:15 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 10/16/2016 1:03 PM, Dicebot wrote:
>> Where does it come from?
> 
> It comes from trying to compile code with the new safety checks, and
> having it fail to compile and require adding annotations all over the
> place. The idea is to infer such annotations in the obvious places.
> 'return' was already successfully inferred in many places, this just
> extends an existing practice.
> 
> 
>> I don't see any mention of such deduction in
>> https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/DIP1000.md
> 
> It's one of those things that becomes necessary once trying to implement
> it.

Walter, there is no way we can merge your PR if it implements things not
mentioned in DIP. If you don't want to spend time adjusting it yourself,
please, at least notify me about what has changed. That will save both
of us a lot of time.

>> and it doesn't look like a good idea at all.
> 
> Inferring 'scope' and 'return' as much as possible makes @safe much more
> palatable. All I can say is try to break it!

It also makes reasoning about what your code does much harder, adding
unacceptable amount of magic to it. I'd much prefer to rely on `auto`
and fix rest of cases myself through deprecations than go with current
"helpful" behavior.

Such semantics are also unprecedented in D as far as I can remember.
Before storage classes would never be inferred for variables with
explicit type. That is highly confusing.

Right now I think this is a bad decision and should be reconsidered.
Would like to now what other developers thing though.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/dlang-internal/attachments/20161020/8d1cf6c4/attachment.sig>