On Saturday, 26 April 2014 at 04:49:07 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
In any case, I don't need another explanation, I don't think it
will ever make sense to me.
It makes sense because there are two different use cases:
1. Library authors who need a more conservative interpretation of
@nogc.
2. Binary release productions who only want to be certain that
the GC is not called where it could lead to a crash.
It would be annoying to have to rewrite code when the compiler
actually knows that it does not touch the GC. So the latter use
cases need the less conservative approach.
