Andrei Alexandrescu, el 20 de enero a las 08:32 me escribiste: > Leandro Lucarella wrote: > >Again? RC is *not* -nogc, is -anothergc. > > I agree. With reference counting, you'd be no worse than a C++ > project that decided to use refcounted smart pointers for all > allocated objects. That sounds good to me. > > >And reference counting won't do > >the trick unless you add a backing GC to free cycles. > > Well there are techniques for lifting cycles but really I think it > wouldn't be bad if the user were given the possibility (e.g. weak > pointers). > > >What I mean about > >-nogc is *no* GC, is "please, mr compiler, give me an error when a GC > >facility is used". > > I know. That could be another object.d implementation that would > @disable certain functions. The nice part about refcounting is that > for the most part you don't need to cripple the language.
But I don't think people that *really* need to be in full control would see a RC GC as something tempting. As long as there is an option to (easily) avoid the GC, I'm happy, if you want to provice an RC implementation then, great. I can't see an RC implementation fitting very well in D (because of slicing and other features, mostly the very same features that makes the D GC very conservative and inefficient). -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- He used to do surgery On girls in the eighties But gravity always wins