Handling constructive criticism

[Bill Baxter]

Bruno Medeiros wrote:
> Sean Kelly wrote:
>> etc.  That said, the only compelling reasons for me to upgrade to 2.0 are
>> struct ctors and overload groups (or whatever they're called).  The const
>> syntax is a dis-incentive, as is the dual meaning of enum, dynamic
>> closures, etc.  They all complicate the syntax in undesirable ways or
>> cause problems while attempting to solve solutions I don't need solved
>> for the work I do.  
> 
> Huh? I understand the issues with const and enum, but what's the problem 
> with dynamic closures?

The only problem is there's no way to turn it off now in the case that 
you were wanting a no-allocation delegate literal.  I think the compiler 
tries to guess if allocating a closure is necessary, but it errs on the 
side of caution and so can create them when  they aren't necessary.

--bb