On Saturday, 25 August 2018 at 02:37:00 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 8/23/2018 5:58 PM, Chris M. wrote:
Seems to be more of a warning of what issues we may face if
DIP25/DIP1000 are finally implemented. It would be good to
consider NLLs as well before D is committed. No point in
repeating issues that have already been studied.
DIP25 waqs "finally implemented" several years ago, and works
well. DIP1000 was implemented as well, it works, but it didn't
cover the case of returning through a ref parameter.
There's no way to "thoroughly vet" them before implementing. It
doesn't happen with C++, either, somebody builds an
implementation and then people try it out.
What about my other point then on the syntax? I think something
similar to what I suggested would be a much more flexible
solution and is worth considering.
