On Friday, 2 May 2014 at 20:10:04 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
On Friday, 2 May 2014 at 18:10:42 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On Friday, 2 May 2014 at 09:41:48 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
That's true, but it is also a breaking change, because then
suddenly some variables aren't writable anymore (or
s/writable/readable/ of course
Yes.
alternatively, the compiler would have to analyse all future
uses of the variable first to see whether it can be inferred
isolated, if that's even possible in the general case). I
believe it's fine if explicit annotation is required.
No, I expect the compiler to backtrack inference when it hits
an error, not to infer eagerly, because indeed, the eager
inference would be a breaking change.
This might work, but would require defining an order of
evaluation for static if's &co, because you could create
logical cycles otherwise.
Yes, but this is unrelated to isolated. In fact this is already
the case. static if is not deterministic. I've made a proposal to
improve the situation:
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP31
But to be fair I'm not quite satisfied. This still leave some
room for unspecified results, but is a great improvement over
current situation.
