[Dlang-study] [lifetime] Few root decisions to take on RC classes

[deadal nix]

I don't see any problem with a DIP. However, I'm concerned by complexity
and complications when having to define feature that aren't completely
orthogonal.

2015-10-30 18:29 GMT-07:00 Timon Gehr <timon.gehr at gmx.ch>:

> On 10/30/2015 10:44 PM, deadal nix wrote:
>
>> I don't think the case for baking @rc into the language has been made at
>> this point. Providing guarantee about escaping is necessary and
>> sufficient to build RC. Providing more needs to be justified. Right now,
>> the only reason I've seen for this is optimization, but intrinsics are
>> largely sufficient for this, and don't even need to be standardized.
>>
>>
> Providing guarantees about escaping is not necessary except for
> optimizations. The reason for baking @rc into the language is that we want
> to be able to @safely escape the 'this' reference for reference-counted
> classes. I don't know if this is a strong enough case, but that does not
> prevent the DIP from being written. I think @rc does not conflict with type
> system features for managing lifetimes.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dlang-study mailing list
> Dlang-study at puremagic.com
> http://lists.puremagic.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dlang-study
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/dlang-study/attachments/20151031/677f1833/attachment.html>