RFC: reference counted Throwable

[Paulo Pinto via Digitalmars-d]

Am 20.09.2014 17:08, schrieb Jacob Carlborg:
> On 2014-09-20 16:33, Paulo Pinto wrote:
>
>> It requires compiler support, though.
>
> The first thing I asked in this thread was "Are you suggesting we
> implement ARC?" and the answer was "Yes" [1]. So it looks like Andrei
> already wants to implement ARC. My definition of ARC is that the
> compiler inserts the calls to retain/release (or whatever you call them).
>
> [1]
> http://forum.dlang.org/thread/lvhiam$1pno$1@digitalmars.com#post-lvi0ve:2429il:241:40digitalmars.com
>
>

I would say ARC == RC. I never saw a distinction in literature between 
both, before Apple used the term.

With all these discussions I have been digging into old papers, and due 
to that I am starting to change my opinion.

As it seems, RC with GC for cycle collection was more common than I 
thought of.

In the end, what matters is having automatic memory management, be it 
via GC, RC or compiler dataflow analysis.

 From an outsider point of view, I just think that whatever the final 
outcome, it should be in a way that avoids the runtime episode from 
repeating itself.

--
Paulo