Rust-based provocation :)

[Dicebot]

On Wednesday, 29 May 2013 at 12:41:25 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> You would be responsible for freeing the former, but not the 
> slice. So I think keeping them a different type is a feature, 
> not a bug, in this situation.

I have been thinking about this long time ago. Clearly, slice 
semantics will change in GC-less environment and will require 
more restrictive operation set. No automatic slice concatenation 
at the very least.

> (Actually I think this would be nice addition to D proper, a 
> special type qualifier that promises you'll never store a 
> reference to this except in local variables. So you can still 
> slice it and so on, but never stuff it in a member variable 
> because the owner might free it without informing you.)

Isn't it what "scope" was supposed to be all about? :) Qualifier 
that prohibits leaking data outside of the current scope.

> And when this is written it might be a good idea to put in 
> phobos too!

Dunno. If something like this can be done, it will need full 
re-implementation of standard library (similar to minlibd) as 
assumption made about feature set allowed and druntime differ a 
lot.