On Monday, 20 February 2023 at 19:58:32 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On 2/20/23 1:50 PM, Etienne wrote:
On Monday, 20 February 2023 at 02:50:20 UTC, Steven
Schveighoffer wrote:
See Adam's bug report:
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23627
So, according to this bug report, the im
On 2/20/23 1:50 PM, Etienne wrote:
On Monday, 20 February 2023 at 02:50:20 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
See Adam's bug report: https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23627
So, according to this bug report, the implementation is allocating a
closure on the GC even though the spec says i
On Monday, 20 February 2023 at 02:50:20 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
See Adam's bug report:
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23627
-Steve
So, according to this bug report, the implementation is
allocating a closure on the GC even though the spec says it
shouldn't?
I've been wr
On 2/19/23 9:15 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Indeed, you can't really "save" the hidden delegate somewhere, so the
calling function knows that the delgate can't escape.
I stand corrected, you can save it (by taking the address of it).
And it's explicitly allowed by the spec.
But it sti
On 2/19/23 7:50 PM, Etienne wrote:
Hello,
I'm wondering at which moment the following would make an allocation of
the scope variables on the GC. Should I assume that the second parameter
of enforce being lazy, we would get a delegate/literal that saves the
current scope on the GC even if it's
Hello,
I'm wondering at which moment the following would make an
allocation of the scope variables on the GC. Should I assume that
the second parameter of enforce being lazy, we would get a
delegate/literal that saves the current scope on the GC even if
it's not needed? I'm asking purely for
