Are you guys saying you don't feel this proposal is practical? http://wiki.dlang.org/User:Schuetzm/scope
I think it's a very interesting approach, and comes from a practical point of view. It solves the long-standings issues, like scope return values, in a very creative way. On 13 November 2014 08:33, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: > On 11/12/14 2:10 PM, deadalnix wrote: >> >> On Wednesday, 12 November 2014 at 15:57:18 UTC, Nick Treleaven >> wrote: >>> >>> I think Rust's lifetimes would be a huge change if ported to D. In >>> Rust user types often need annotations as well as function parameters. >>> People tend to want Rust's guarantees without the limitations. I think >>> D does need some kind of scope attribute verification, but we need to >>> throw out some of the guarantees Rust makes to get an appropriate fit >>> for existing D code. >>> >> >> Rust is not the first language going that road. The problem is >> that you get great complexity if you don't want to be too >> limiting in what you can do. This complexity ultimately ends up >> costing more than what you gain. >> >> I think the sane road to go into is supporting >> ownership/burrowing for common cases, and fallback on the GC, or >> unsafe construct for the rest. >> >> One have to admit there is no silver bullet, and shoehorning >> everything in the same solution is not gonna work. > > > I agree. This is one of those cases in which a good engineering solution may > be a lot better than the "perfect" solution (and linear types are not even > perfect...). > > Andrei