On 4/7/12 9:59 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 4/7/2012 7:58 PM, Chad J wrote:Hey, that sounds awesome. I think I geeked out a bit.Would this make it any easier to reference count types that can be statically proven to have no cyclical references?It has nothing to do with reference counting that I can think of.
Nevertheless good food for thought. This is all very cool. Andrei
