RFC: moving forward with @nogc Phobos

[Dicebot via Digitalmars-d]

On Monday, 29 September 2014 at 17:04:54 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
>> Yes but neither decision belongs to library code except for 
>> very rare
>> cases.
>
> You just assert it, so all I can say is "I understand you 
> believe this". I've motivated my argument. You may want to do 
> the same for yours.

I probably have missed the part with arguments :) Your reasoning 
is not fundamentally different from "GC should be enough" but 
extended to several options from single one.

My argument is simple - one can't forsee everything. I remember 
reading book of one guy who has been advocating thing called 
"policy-based design", you may know him ;) Was quite impressed 
with the simple but practical basic idea - decoupling parts of 
the implementation that are not inherently related.

> So you don't have an answer. And again you are confusing memory 
> allocation with memory management.

Yes, sorry, I don't have an answer. Or time do deeply dive into 
the code unless it is really important or my direct 
responsibility.

Unfortunately, I don't see an answer how your proposal fits our 
code either. Most of Sociomantic code relies on using arrays as 
ref arguments to avoid creating of new GC roots (no, we don't 
need/want to switch to ARC). This was several times called as the 
reason why Phobos in its current shape is largely unusable for 
out needs even when D2 switch is finished. I don't see how 
proposal in original post changes that.