On Wednesday, 9 July 2014 at 12:01:12 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
Sounds a lot like "pure", but not quite matching up?
Well, `scope` was supposed to be that, but it's unimplemented
and not completely thought through.
*nods*
Thinking aloud: If we could distinguish GC pointers from non-GC
pointers, we could apply the ownership information to them
"after the fact". Any GC pointer that comes out from your
library functions inside an auto-release block can be confined
to inside that block, or to the lifetime of the allocator.
(That is, only _newly allocated_ GC pointers inside those
blocks...)
For the @nogc+region allocator GC pointers could be helpeful. And
as I tried to point out in another thread on GC performance, it
could also provide precise GC collection performance benefits if
you also clustered the GC pointers in objects at a negative
offset (thus getting them onto the same cachelines even though
they originate in deep sub-classes as well as super.classes).
Another benefit with explicit GC pointers is that you could ban
GC pointers to classes that provide destructors, sanitizing the
constructor/destructor situation.
