[OT] Finding longest documents

[Sergey Gromov]

Thu, 16 Oct 2008 06:44:30 +0900,
Bill Baxter wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 5:46 AM, Sergey Gromov <snake.scaly at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Wed, 15 Oct 2008 14:04:44 -0500,
> > Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> >> Sergey Gromov wrote:
> >> > Wed, 15 Oct 2008 09:49:08 -0500,
> >> > Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> >> >> Sergey Gromov wrote:
> >> >>> Wed, 15 Oct 2008 09:17:57 -0500,
> >> >>> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> >> >>>> I see how it breaks those conventions, but I've never heard of them. The
> >> >>>> convention I heard of is that if you want dynamic polymorphism you use
> >> >>>> classes, otherwise you don't.
> >> >>> How about if you want pass-by-value you use structs, otherwise you don't?
> >> >>> My argument against structs-collections is that I want to toss
> >> >>> collections around and build other collections out of them without
> >> >>> messing with pointers.
> >> >> A struct can choose to implement value or reference semantics as it
> >> >> pleases. The only thing it can't readily implement is dynamic polymorphism.
> >> >
> >> > I can imagine the documentation: "Ignore the fact it's a struct, it's
> >> > actually a reference internally."
> >>
> >> No. "Don't submit to the dogma that struct == value semantics, because
> >> that was never true".
> >
> > I don't understand.  Structs are value types, everything else are
> > implementation details.
> 
> I think the point is that value *type* doesn't necessarily imply value
> *semantics*.
> Like with D's built-in arrays.

Arrays are very widely used and very well documented to the point they're 
quite obvious.  There are no hidden implementation details.  
Nevertheless, there are well-known problems which directly follow from 
the arrays' sort-of-reference semantics.