On 8/14/2011 12:54 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I have only little sympathy for this argument; it actually leaves me
more convinced we're on the right path. We're not talking about making
it impossible to do something that you want to do. We're discussing
about a change that will make a lot of functions efficient _and_ safe,
leaving a minority of cases to a slight syntactic change.
Andrei
But this breaks encapsulation horribly in the presence of conservative
rules. Let's say you start off with a function:
SomeType fun(ref T arg) { .... }
Then you change fun()'s implementation such that it takes the address of
arg. It does **not** escape this address, so the fact that the address
is taken is an implementation detail. However, since the compiler's
rules are conservative, this code would might be illegal if the compiler
can't prove via its static analysis that the addresses don't escape.
Bam! Implementation details leaking into function signatures.
