On 08/15/2011 04:04 PM, Mehrdad wrote:
On 8/15/2011 4:10 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 08/15/2011 08:16 AM, Mehrdad wrote:
(1) I thought the whole point of D was that you didn't need pointers to
program effectively?
Why would the change contradict this?
Because now you need pointers to pass things by reference?
Only if the function intends to escape the reference. And if you really
need to, you can still use a cast. Furthermore, escaping a reference is
generally unsafe when it is to stack memory (they can be some
higher-level invariant that guarantees safety, but that is not within
the compilers reach -- use a cast.)
When the reference is to a value type on heap memory, you had pointers
in your code all along.
(2) Isn't this what compiler **warnings** are for?
In a well designed language, warnings are useless.
?!?!??!!
You've never used C#/C/Java/whatever? Or do you think they're all poorly
designed?
Warnings are issued for constructs that are regarded as potentially
dangerous/error-prone by many people, but are still valid code.
Therefore, they usually reflect suboptimal language design.
