On 9/22/14, 9:53 PM, Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On 23 September 2014 14:41, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d
<digitalmars-d@puremagic.com <mailto:digitalmars-d@puremagic.com>> wrote:
On 9/22/14, 8:03 PM, Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
I still think most of those users would accept RC instead of GC.
Why not
support RC in the language, and make all of this library noise
redundant?
A combo approach language + library delivers the most punch.
How so? In what instances are complicated templates superior to a
language RC type?
It just works out that way. I don't know exactly why. In fact I have an
idea why, but conveying it requires building a bunch of context.
Library RC can't really optimise well, RC requires language
support to
elide ref fiddling.
For class objects that's what's going to happen indeed.
Where is this discussion? Last time I raised it, it was fiercely shut
down and dismissed.
Consider yourself vindicated! (Not really, the design will be different
from what you asked.) The relevant discussion is entitled "RFC:
reference counted Throwable", and you've already participated to it :o).
Andrei
