Future of SafeRefCounted

[Richard (Rikki) Andrew Cattermole]

On 25/02/2025 1:17 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Saturday, February 22, 2025 12:05:49 PM MST Dukc via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> 
> 
>     What are your thoughts?
> 
> 
> Personally, I'm very much hoping that DIP 1000 gets killed off. There 
> are some niche cases where it's useful, but in general, it's just too 
> disruptive. In order to support it in general, code that doesn't care at 
> all about it has to be marked with scope in order for the code that does 
> care about it to be able to use that code. And the reason that the 
> current plan is for Phobos v3 to not do anything with DIP 1000 is 
> because a number of us feel that way. Atila is looking to see if he can 
> come up with a way to make it work without being so disruptive, but I 
> question that that's going to work, whereas others like Rikki are 
> looking to do something else entirely which will theoretically cover 
> more than DIP 1000 does. So, I don't know what we're going to end up 
> with, but realistically, if a type requires DIP 1000 in order to be 
> @safe, then it's likely not going to be @safe in Phobos v3.

I'm exploring it from both directions.

Trying to model more things (without doing whole program analysis), and 
have the default be "to give up" when it cannot analyze what it does or 
doesn't understand.

Basically get the best of both worlds by having a fast and a slow DFA 
engine.

It'll mean that PhobosV3 would have DFA language features, with some 
guarantees. There may even be whole modules that support the slow DFA, 
but we'll see about it as a stretch goal.