On 7/17/2019 12:11 PM, Olivier FAURE wrote:
On Tuesday, 16 July 2019 at 06:12:42 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Now I just have to deliver the goods!
Lately, I've been thinking about the possibility of an alternative ownership
system for D, one that would be radically different from what you're
considering, but still aim for the same features (memory safety, compile-time
checking, zero-cost abstraction), based on a `unique` qualifier.
If I were to write a formal proposal for it, how interested would you be in
comparing the two schemes (DIP 1021 and eventually Rust "one mutable ref" rule,
vs unique qualifier)?
Like, I want to make my pitch, but I don't want to spend huge amount of effort
on it if you're just going to go with DIP 1021 anyway.
Any competing system would need to not be 'opt-in' on a type by type basis. I.e.
the central feature of an @live function is the user will not be able to write
memory unsafe code within that function.
I'm interested to see your design. But I suggest you move quickly, as I've
suggested people who talked about this propose a design for the last 10 years,
nothing has happened, and we can't wait any longer.
