The "no gc" crowd

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 10/11/13 7:46 AM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
> On 11/10/13 16:32, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
>> This. And exactly the same for immutable. It's interesting how folks
>> totally
>> expect complex types (like containers) to meaningfully work with all 3
>> qualifiers.
>
> It's not so much that we expect it, as that we might expect that
> standard library types would _have the appropriate design work put in_
> so that they would "just work" with these qualifiers.  (Admittedly
> shared is a bit of a special case right now that probably needs more
> work before support is rolled out.)
>
> If you tell me that's an unreasonable expectation then fair enough, but
> it feels pretty bad if e.g. library-implemented number types (big
> integers or floats, rationals, complex numbers, ...) can't from a user
> perspective behave exactly like their built-in counterparts.

I think that's reasonable.

Andrei