On Wednesday, 24 April 2013 at 12:38:19 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 4/24/13 6:27 AM, Diggory wrote:
Anyway, it seems in general that everyone thinks DIP25A should
be
implemented, or am I mistaken?
I'd like to work a bit more on it before a formal review.
Andrei
If you find the time one day, please revisit the "Taking address"
section.
I'm convinced that the goal of DIP25 could be fully realized even
with some of the restrictions relaxed/lifted, with less
code-breakage as result.
In particular:
Allowing '&' for non-ref parameters and "Stack-allocated locals"
in @system.
It encourages bad programming style where heap is preferred over
stack, just to silence the compiler. Yes '&' is dangerous but
it's a separate issue, why conflate a "Sealed references" DIP
with restrictions on normal "non ref" C-style systems programming?
Thanks for reading this far...
