[Dlang-study] [lifetime] Few root decisions to take on RC classes

[Martin Nowak]

On 11/02/2015 01:20 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> class Widget
>   static Widget g;
>   void fun()
>   {
>     g = this;
>   }
> }
> 
> If we make the entire Widget reference-counted, the compiler knows how
> to make the code work. If we go the @noescape route, this code and
> others like it will be statically disallowed. So we end up with
> something more restrictive (or more complicated if we decide to allow
> certain escape patterns).

Why are we trying so hard to make bad code work? Sharing the ownership
of a class from within a method can be very surprising and can always be
replaced by sharing with the function (passing as argument)/assigning on
the callsite.

Even more important the @rc scheme doesn't seem to solve a much more
common use case.

class Widget
{
  void fun()
  {
    escapingReferenceToFoo(field);
  }
  Foo field;
}


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/dlang-study/attachments/20151102/7c3a5aa7/attachment.sig>