On Saturday, 4 October 2014 at 22:02:14 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 10/4/14, 4:24 AM, "Marc Schütz" <schue...@gmx.net>" wrote:
On Friday, 3 October 2014 at 19:51:40 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 10/3/14, 11:35 AM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
01-Oct-2014 14:10, Robert burner Schadek пишет:
lately when working on std.string I run into problems
making stuff nogc
as std.utf.decode is not nogc.
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13458
Trivial to do. But before that somebody got to make one of:
a) A policy on reuse of exceptions. Literally we have easy
TLS why not
put 1 copy of each possible exception there? (**ck the
chaining, who
need it anyway?)
b) Make all exceptions ref-counted.
The benefit of A is that "creating" exceptions becomes MUCH
faster.
This seems to be going in circles. Didn't we just agree we
solve this
by making exceptions reference counted? Please advise. --
Andrei
Depends on who "we" is. There was a large discussion with
several
alternative suggestions and no clear conclusion.
I proposed in this forum that we use reference counting and
there was general agreement that that would help, no killer
counterargument, and no other better solution. Conclusion was
pretty clear to me: we move to reference counted exceptions. --
Andrei
There was indeed agreement on reference counting (although
someone suggested disallowing cycles or removing chaining
altogether). But what I meant is that there was no agreement on a
specific solution, and several ones were proposed, from full
general compiler supported refcounting to library implementation.
