On 4/24/13 3:08 PM, Tove wrote:
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...
I agree. At any rate, DIP25 is on the aggressive side right now. I think
we should first implement the noncontroversial parts and defer
discussion on the breakages.
Andrei
