RCArray is unsafe

[Zach the Mystic via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 4 March 2015 at 08:13:33 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
> On Wednesday, 4 March 2015 at 03:46:36 UTC, Zach the Mystic 
> wrote:
>> That's fine. I like DIP25. It's a start towards stronger 
>> safety guarantees. While I'm pretty sure the runtime costs of 
>> my proposal are lower than yours, they do require compiler 
>> hacking, which means they can wait.
>
> I don't think that it is fine.
>
> At this point we need to :
>  - Not free anything as long as something is alive.
>  - Can't recycle memory.
>  - Keep track of allocated chunk to be able to free them (ie 
> implementing malloc on top of malloc).

Well, I don't want to make any enemies. I thought that once the 
compiler was hacked people could just change their 
deferred-freeing code.