On Friday, 26 May 2017 at 21:31:20 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
Part of this may mean clarifying what @nogc actually means.
Does it mean no interaction with the GC system, or does it mean
"cannot run a collection cycle"?
I was pleased to find GC.addRange is now @nogc, so it seems
potential interaction with the GC is OK so long as allocation and
collection don't happen. Non-@nogc addRange was quite a blocker
for smart pointer implementation.
This does seem compatible with Walter's idea of not requiring
linking of the GC runtime, at least in that the GC functions
(such as addRange) can be stubbed out.
