Idea: Ownership & lifetime escape analysis by variables in reference to

[rikki cattermole]

On 30/05/2022 12:40 AM, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> On Sunday, 29 May 2022 at 12:11:01 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
>> I did mention elsewhere that I previously used scope as a type 
>> qualifier to do this.
> 
> I guess what I am saying is something like this:
> 
> I think you would get better yield for your time investment by pursuing 
> how to add barriers and figuring out how one could write @trusted code 
> in such a landscape than anything related to advanced escape analysis in 
> the context of verification of *D code* (optimization is ok, because 
> then you will choose a best effort strategy, verification is 
> all-or-nothing).

I'm basically maxed out on this like a year ago. I've only been bringing 
it up as an example of an alternative to DIP1000 and friends. To show 
that we could be far closer to a useful solution than what we have now 
which is certainly not hitting its marks.

Write barriers should be a mere glue code problem. That doesn't need a 
DIP or anything else, just someone who knows the code bases to do it!

It would be great to have alternative designs, but whatever is come up 
with, I think a key design decision is going to be the differentiation 
between dependency and complimentary of runtime mechanisms. I know 
you've been wanting more on the dependency side of decisions, whereas 
I'm more interested in complimentary since I have to stick to things 
like -betterC.