On Saturday, 11 April 2015 at 11:33:51 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
On Saturday, 11 April 2015 at 09:41:07 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 4/11/2015 2:28 AM, "Marc =?UTF-8?B?U2Now7x0eiI=?=
<schue...@gmx.net>" wrote:
It's not acceptable that it happens behind the user's back.
Costly operations
must be explicit.
Don't know of a better solution.
How about this?
http://wiki.dlang.org/User:Schuetzm/scope3#.40safe-ty_violations_with_borrowing
Btw, I also made other changes: No implied scope for @safe
functions, no overloading on scope (instead postblit and
destructor are skipped), and added a terminology section
(rather important!).
Just passing, a bit off topic and clearly not familiar enough
with the discussed subject but in case you missed it the last
rust blog post is an nice and motivated introduction to their
ownership system :
http://blog.rust-lang.org/2015/04/10/Fearless-Concurrency.html
I need to read about Marc's scope proposal...I am not convinced
by the dip77, what about raii managed classes with costly
opAssign operator (like in w0rn example) ? The goal of passing an
object by reference is to avoid the copy and here you guess the
parameter is ref-counted and made a (pseudo-)copy ? Then any
allocating opAssign should be marked @system ?
