DMD 0.177 release

[Lutger]

Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
> "Lutger" <lutger.blijdestijn at gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:elmjl8$1tdg$1 at digitaldaemon.com...
> 
>> About this optimization business, is this an issue? Since Walter stated 
>> that such copies are optimized away (trivially?), my assumption was that 
>> the syntax as it is now relies on this optimization being present. Or to 
>> put it in other words, static opCall would not be supported if there was 
>> no such optimization possible.
>> Perhaps it is similar to how the use of functors with templates in C++ 
>> rely on inlining, STL would be so slow without such optimizations.
>>
>> My question is if it is reasonable to make this assumption or can you put 
>> compiler optimization aside?
> 
> The impression I get from Walter is that _eeeevery_ compiler has 
> optimization, so it's a nonissue.  :P
> 
> Optimization should be an entirely optional pass.  Making language features 
> rely on it seems hackish at best. 
> 
> 

Can you explain why? 'Rely' in this context doesn't mean the language is 
broken right? It just means it is slower, but isn't that expected from a 
non-optimizing compiler anyway?