std.utf.decode @nogc please

[via Digitalmars-d]

On Saturday, 4 October 2014 at 22:02:14 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
> On 10/4/14, 4:24 AM, "Marc Schütz" <schuetzm at gmx.net>" wrote:
>> On Friday, 3 October 2014 at 19:51:40 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
>> wrote:
>>> On 10/3/14, 11:35 AM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
>>>> 01-Oct-2014 14:10, Robert burner Schadek пишет:
>>>>> lately when working on std.string I run into problems 
>>>>> making stuff nogc
>>>>> as std.utf.decode is not nogc.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13458
>>>>
>>>> Trivial to do. But before that somebody got to make  one of:
>>>>
>>>> a) A policy on reuse of exceptions. Literally we have easy 
>>>> TLS why not
>>>> put 1 copy of each possible exception there? (**ck the 
>>>> chaining, who
>>>> need it anyway?)
>>>> b) Make all exceptions ref-counted.
>>>>
>>>> The benefit of A is that "creating" exceptions becomes MUCH 
>>>> faster.
>>>
>>> This seems to be going in circles. Didn't we just agree we 
>>> solve this
>>> by making exceptions reference counted? Please advise. -- 
>>> Andrei
>>
>> Depends on who "we" is. There was a large discussion with 
>> several
>> alternative suggestions and no clear conclusion.
>
> I proposed in this forum that we use reference counting and 
> there was general agreement that that would help, no killer 
> counterargument, and no other better solution. Conclusion was 
> pretty clear to me: we move to reference counted exceptions. -- 
> Andrei

There was indeed agreement on reference counting (although 
someone suggested disallowing cycles or removing chaining 
altogether). But what I meant is that there was no agreement on a 
specific solution, and several ones were proposed, from full 
general compiler supported refcounting to library implementation.