On Friday, 28 April 2017 at 19:41:15 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Friday, 28 April 2017 at 15:43:22 UTC, Moritz Maxeiner wrote:
On Friday, 28 April 2017 at 14:59:46 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
Walter's position has always been that having more than a
single pointer type is a disaster.
None of the threads I've read in the last couple of years
regarding that support that claim.
He has restated this position many many times... Random
snippets:
«Microsoft's Managed C++ had two pointer types, and it went
over like a lead zeppelin.
»
http://forum.dlang.org/post/mclqt1$1e5n$1...@digitalmars.com
«Back in the old DOS days, there were multiple pointer types
(near and far). Programmers put up with that because it was the
only way, but they HATED HATED HATED it.»
http://forum.dlang.org/post/mcnv9u$e8p$1...@digitalmars.com
I had not read these, thank you :)
Both of these, however, show only that he doesn't seem to
personally like multiple pointer types (and consequently doesn't
seem to have any interest in working on them himself); that's not
the same as him claiming that it "is a disaster" (in general,
which is what you were implying).
You can easily find more... No point in trying to get that into
the core language (but it is necessary to get proper
destruction of GC managed objects in a reasonable way).
What you consider not pointless is your business, again, but if
you don't try to get it in the core language, you have no
foundation to complain that's it's not in there.
