On 10 April 2013 22:27, Namespace <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wednesday, 10 April 2013 at 11:37:43 UTC, Dicebot wrote: > >> On Wednesday, 10 April 2013 at 11:36:22 UTC, deadalnix wrote: >> >>> On Tuesday, 9 April 2013 at 17:06:47 UTC, Namespace wrote: >>> >>>> http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP36 >>>> >>> >>> I see no point in adding that much complexity for something that can >>> mostly be automated. >>> >> >> Can you explain this a bit more extensively, probably with some sort of >> counter-proposal? I can't see where complexity comes from, this DIP >> introduces literally zero special cases. >> > > I think he means that the Compiler could/should decide, if something > should passed by ref or by value. But I think that would be far more > complex than scope ref/in ref. >
Right. Yeah, seems more complex for sure. It's also unreliable/unpredictable. Same as with the pure conversation, I really prefer explicit control of things to at least be an option. I really don't want to be guessing about things that I may be depending on.
