Ownership and Borrowing in D

[Walter Bright]

On 7/17/2019 12:11 PM, Olivier FAURE wrote:
> On Tuesday, 16 July 2019 at 06:12:42 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> Now I just have to deliver the goods!
> 
> Lately, I've been thinking about the possibility of an alternative ownership 
> system for D, one that would be radically different from what you're 
> considering, but still aim for the same features (memory safety, compile-time 
> checking, zero-cost abstraction), based on a `unique` qualifier.
> 
> If I were to write a formal proposal for it, how interested would you be in 
> comparing the two schemes (DIP 1021 and eventually Rust "one mutable ref" rule, 
> vs unique qualifier)?
> 
> Like, I want to make my pitch, but I don't want to spend huge amount of effort 
> on it if you're just going to go with DIP 1021 anyway.

Any competing system would need to not be 'opt-in' on a type by type basis. I.e. 
the central feature of an @live function is the user will not be able to write 
memory unsafe code within that function.

I'm interested to see your design. But I suggest you move quickly, as I've 
suggested people who talked about this propose a design for the last 10 years, 
nothing has happened, and we can't wait any longer.