On Sunday, 21 April 2013 at 01:04:04 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On Saturday, 20 April 2013 at 18:00:50 UTC, Namespace wrote:
The fact is, there's much more to any change than simply
implementing it. Changes break unexpected things. There are
always extra corner cases not considered. There are always
bugs and inconsistencies.
Could be, but I don't see what could be broken by this DIP.
All contingencies are listed also in the DIP (and that are not
many). And it passed all tests what is crucial.
The DIP for instance, consider that const scope ref is
semantically equivalent to pass by value, when it isn't (and
not only for performance reasons, but for aliasing reasons).
Nothing is considered about it.
At least some objections that make sense and I'd love to see in
the very first announcement. If you see any issues that prevent
treating "const scope int" as "const scope ref int", please tell
about them and they will be addressed in DIP. Because it is the
intention. I don't understand what aliasing are you speaking
about.
