Why not?
There are many examples of operating systems with
garbage collector built-in.
"Era Scarecrow" wrote in > to use delete. Also since
this is a OS building language, i wouldn't expect a garbage
> > collector in that instance at all.
>
> So, Delete should just be discouraged, not removed
== Quote from Andrej Mitrovic (andrej.mitrov...@gmail.com)'s article
> I think that one is going as well (IIRC).
> On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 8:49 PM, Daniel Gibson wrote:
> > Andrei Alexandrescu schrieb:
> >>
> >> On 08/29/2010 11:28 AM, Daniel Gibson wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Craig Black schrieb:
>
>
I think that one is going as well (IIRC).
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 8:49 PM, Daniel Gibson wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu schrieb:
>>
>> On 08/29/2010 11:28 AM, Daniel Gibson wrote:
>>>
>>> Craig Black schrieb:
It seems that much of the community is for removing the new keyword,
>>>
>>> Rea
Andrei Alexandrescu schrieb:
On 08/29/2010 11:28 AM, Daniel Gibson wrote:
Craig Black schrieb:
It seems that much of the community is for removing the new keyword,
Really? This is the first time I've heard about this.
Why should it be removed anyway?
There has been some discussion about remov
On 08/29/2010 11:28 AM, Daniel Gibson wrote:
Craig Black schrieb:
It seems that much of the community is for removing the new keyword,
Really? This is the first time I've heard about this.
Why should it be removed anyway?
There has been some discussion about removing "delete" (is there any
def
I think it's nice when you want to differentiate between making a
struct/class object. Otherwise you'll end up doing:
C c; // This is a class object, not a struct!
Unless something else like templated constructors could help with
this, but I'm not sure what those are yet. :p
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010
Daniel Gibson:
> Really? This is the first time I've heard about this.
> Why should it be removed anyway?
It was discussed a lot, and some people were about OK with the idea. The
current new syntax is not nice looking, and maybe not necessary. The idea is to
remove all not necessary things from
Craig Black schrieb:
It seems that much of the community is for removing the new keyword,
Really? This is the first time I've heard about this.
Why should it be removed anyway?
There has been some discussion about removing "delete" (is there any
definite decision on that yet?) though.
It seems that much of the community is for removing the new keyword, but
Walter is not. I've thought up a compromise that Walter may agree to and
that would not require any syntax changes. It's a very simple idea:
What if new could be defined as a template, but called without the ! so that
t
