On Wednesday, 16 October 2019 at 15:23:01 UTC, Paolo Invernizzi
wrote:
On Wednesday, 16 October 2019 at 15:01:17 UTC, Atila Neves
wrote:
[...]
I don't think it's political: the change implies breakage for
downstream users who inherit from the class who might not even
care about @nogc.
The proposed solution is to "add" a new @nogc method, with the
correct signature, so that if someone want to write application
and care about @nogc and @safe can rely on the D standard
library being complaint to that.
What's the problem with that, if not a _political_ one? We have
a "wrong" signature, we don't break anything, but we add
"correct" signature. That's what already was done in Mutex with
lock_nothrow, but it's seen as "annoying to have to define/use
alternate names for all the methods, though"
Oh. I missed that.
