On Wednesday, 10 April 2013 at 12:40:57 UTC, Manu wrote:
On 10 April 2013 22:27, Namespace <rswhi...@googlemail.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, 10 April 2013 at 11:37:43 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Wednesday, 10 April 2013 at 11:36:22 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On Tuesday, 9 April 2013 at 17:06:47 UTC, Namespace wrote:
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP36
I see no point in adding that much complexity for something
that can
mostly be automated.
Can you explain this a bit more extensively, probably with
some sort of
counter-proposal? I can't see where complexity comes from,
this DIP
introduces literally zero special cases.
I think he means that the Compiler could/should decide, if
something
should passed by ref or by value. But I think that would be
far more
complex than scope ref/in ref.
Right. Yeah, seems more complex for sure. It's also
unreliable/unpredictable. Same as with the pure conversation, I
really
prefer explicit control of things to at least be an option. I
really don't
want to be guessing about things that I may be depending on.
It is certainly more complex on the compiler implementation side.
But the ends result can be much better, and any program would
benefit from it.
Plus, do you know that depending on the ABI, some pass by value
are already transformed as pass by ref ? This is already in place
in some cases, and have been proven to work well.
Back to the DIP, it fail to define how and where lvalue are
implicitely created, what are their lifetime, etc . . .
Finally, ref and scope would benefit much more from the
introduction of lifetime into D than hacking around.
