On Thursday, 25 September 2014 at 02:16:32 UTC, Manu via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On 25 September 2014 08:54, Andrei Alexandrescu via
Digitalmars-d
It's what I use now, and it's as good at C++, but we can do
much
better than that.
D's copy semantics are different from C++'s.
I don't see how that influences this.
For one, it allows to turn copy+destruction into a move, e.g. for
tail calls.
I'm also not convinced meaningful refcounting can be
implemented
before we have scope(T) working properly. I think we should be
addressing that first.
That may as well be true.
Shall we declare this a decisive area of development and start
a conversation?
I particularly liked the proposal in the other thread, until it
transformed into a storage class.
Please note that I'm not opposed to turn it back into a type
modifier. I just don't understand your problems enough to form an
opinion on it, and as long as that is the case, it's not a good
idea to switch it back and forth, especially since it brings
along its own problems. Please post a create example where a
storage class fails (in the other thread).
