RFC: naming for FrontTransversal and Transversal ranges

[Michel Fortin]

On 2009-04-29 23:01:39 -0400, Rainer Deyke <rainerd at eldwood.com> said:

> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> 2. Value semantics with reference counting
> 
> I like this optimization and use it all the time in my own code, but I'm
> not convinced that it should be the default.  It's also problematic in
> multithreaded situations.
> 
> I think a generic CopyOnWrite wrapper over arbitrary value types would
> be more useful.  CopyOnWrite!(int[]).

But don't forget that D2 is going to have the shared keyword, possibly 
with thread-local heaps. So multithreading won't be much of a problem: 
if the variable is shared, the compiler should force locks as needed or 
use atomic operations; if the variable is local to a thread, locks 
should become no-ops and atomic operations regular ones, improving 
performance.

Or at least that's what I'm getting from the hints we currently have.


>> 3. Reference semantics
> 
> I'm strongly opposed to this option.  Either of the other options would
> be acceptable.

Andrei mentioned a couple of reasons against 3, which are yours?


-- 
Michel Fortin
michel.fortin at michelf.com
http://michelf.com/