DIP25 draft available for destruction

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 2/6/13 12:33 PM, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
> Am 06.02.2013 08:38, schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu:
>> Probably it'll need a fair amount of tweaking. Anyhow it's in
>> destroyable form.
>>
>> http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP25
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Andrei
>
> What I don't get is, why is it better to have a function
> "addressOf(value)" that does exactly the same as &value? Expect that it
> is more text to type? Why is addressOf(value) more explicit then &value?

A good part of that is the recent debate on what &func should do (take 
the address of the function vs. the address of its result). With the 
unsafe meaning out of the way, only the safe one is eligible.

Andrei