RFC: moving forward with @nogc Phobos

[Chris Williams via Digitalmars-d]

On Monday, 29 September 2014 at 12:29:33 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> Any assumption that library code can go away with some set of 
> pre-defined allocation strategies is crap. This whole 
> discussion was about how important it is to move allocation 
> decisions to user code (ranges are just one tool to achieve 
> that, Don has been presenting examples of how we do that with 
> plain arrays in DConf 2014 talk).

I think the key to this sort of issue is to try and get as much 
functionality in Phobos marked @nogc as possible. After that, 
building new library-like functionality into a DUB package that 
assumes @nogc and only uses the @nogc code in Phobos would be the 
next step. Should that get to a state where it's popular and 
supported, pulling it in as std.nogc.* might make sense, but 
trying to redo Phobos as a manual memory collection library is 
infeasible.

Were I your company, I'd start working on leading such an effort.

Unlike Tango, I don't think a development like this would split 
the community nor the community's resources in a useless fashion.