On Friday, 1 January 2021 at 16:45:16 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
I don't know anything about any official positions other than
the fact that Walter dislikes having more than one pointer type
and is working on some kind of "liveness" verification for a
C-style free/malloc regime, which is rather rare in other
languages these days. Not really sure how that fits with modern
code bases.
Isn't there some work on move-semantics to make C++ interfacing
better? But shared_ptr is only for C++ interop, perhaps? Or is
it meant for D-code?
To me it looks like things are a bit up-in-the-air at the
moment.
Unsurprising answers unfortunately :(
As for the move-semantics, I know that DIP 1014 was accepted, but
I don't know anything beyond that (haven't really looked into it
at all tbh).
And well, having many options that are incompatible would not
be good for library interop, so choices have to be made to
avoid "tower of Babel".
This is a concern of mine, especially when D touts about the GC
being optional, but I do have doubts about any ground being made
on this front, either in discussions, decisions, or
implementations, within the next year or two.
Meanwhile I believe C++ (keep in mind I very rarely touch or look
at C++) already has a standard allocator interface that parts of
the STL (and I assume libraries, when/if they care) are able to
use? I'm unaware of the issues it might have in C++, but that's
mostly because of my lack of use and knowledge of the language.
It has standard pointer types, etc.
I wonder what problems D faces in comparison to C++ and other
languages in this regard, since it's been in a limbo, fragmented
state for a while now.
