Re: what was the problem with the old post blit operator already ?

2024-02-15 Thread Kagamin via Digitalmars-d-learn
It was mostly fine, such types are not supposed to be immutable, but recently came an idea of reference counted strings, which need to be immutable for being strings.

Re: what was the problem with the old post blit operator already ?

2024-02-14 Thread Basile B. via Digitalmars-d-learn
On Thursday, 15 February 2024 at 03:17:11 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: On Wednesday, February 14, 2024 7:17:15 PM MST Basile B. via Digitalmars-d- learn wrote: From what I remember, it was that there was no reference to the source. Things got blitted and you had to fix the copy, already blitte

Re: what was the problem with the old post blit operator already ?

2024-02-14 Thread Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-learn
On Wednesday, February 14, 2024 7:17:15 PM MST Basile B. via Digitalmars-d- learn wrote: > From what I remember, it was that there was no reference to the > source. Things got blitted and you had to fix the copy, already > blitted. Was that the only issue ? There were probably some use cases wher

Re: what was the problem with the old post blit operator already ?

2024-02-14 Thread H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d-learn
On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 02:17:15AM +, Basile B. via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote: > From what I remember, it was that there was no reference to the > source. Things got blitted and you had to fix the copy, already > blitted. Was that the only issue ? I don't quite remember all of the reasons no