On 06.06.2012 15:45, Gor Gyolchanyan wrote:
I had this idea for a long time now and was trying to find a reason why it was a bad idea. I failed to find that reason, so here it is:
There is. For one thing I like pointer for being explicit about dereferencing something. In this sense having ref arguments of function is IMO step backwards:
mutator(a, b); vs mutator(a, &b); which one more likely to mutate arguments? In today's D you'll never know.
The idea is to have a mutable reference: int& a; // This is a mutable reference (essentially a pointer, but with reversed behavior). assert(&a is null); // the address must be taken before address-related operations can be performed a = 20; // Access violation error due to null pointer dereferencing. &a = new int; // Addresses, taken from mutable references are lvalues. a = 20; assert(a == 20); &c = null; assert(&c is null); The idea here is to further reduce the need to explicitly deal with addresses, while providing the number one reason why people use pointers: indirection. This mechanism will exclude indirection from the list of reasons why one would use pointers. This is also good for reducing compiler magic, when dealing with ref parameters and return types for functions. This mutable reference would be the complete compliment of pointers: dereferencing a pointer yields a mutable reference, taking address of a mutable reference yields a mutable pointer. This is not a proposition to add to D, but rather an idea, which could eventually end up in D if you guys think it's worth it. It could also be used to remove the magic from reference types, by adding their non-reference counter-parts and have their "constructors" return such a mutable reference.
-- Dmitry Olshansky
