Idea #1 on integrating RC with GC

[Adam Wilson]

On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 23:21:43 -0800, Andrei Alexandrescu  
<SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:

> On 2/4/14, 11:20 PM, Jesse Phillips wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 23:51:35 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> and those who don't care say:
>>>
>>> auto x = fun().toGC();
>>
>> If I don't care, why would I place .toGC() at the end of my calls?
>
> This is the way it all works: RC+GC is more structure than GC, so you  
> start with more structure and then optionally "forget" it.
>
>> What
>> reason do I have to go out of my way to request this?
>
> You use an API that uses e.g. string, not RCString.
>

The amount of existing-code-breakage here will be immense. Almost nothing,  
unless it uses Phobos only, will compile once this is released. It might  
even do more damage to D's still fragile public-image than the  
Phobos/Tango fiasco did.

>> What problems can
>> I expect when I forget to add it?
>
> Passing x around won't compile.
>

And we're supposed to want that? (See Above)

>
> Andrei


-- 
Adam Wilson
GitHub/IRC: LightBender
Aurora Project Coordinator