17.04.2013 15:26, Timon Gehr пишет:
On 04/17/2013 12:35 PM, Denis Shelomovskij wrote:
...
It will make code in Issue 9603 work.
You have to argue why this is the correct way to fix it. Why would
lifetime control necessarily be linked to implicit object field overhead?
0. I do like this approach, it looks straight and consistent IMO.
1. I see no other ways to fix the issue.
2. I see no important overhead in my proposal as wasting a few bytes is
nothing in contrast with GC allocation process/memory overhead.
3. I think added functionality is very usable and even already required.
Everyone is free to propose a better approach.
By the way, almost every technical idea we know is incorrect and will be
likely superceeded in the future with a better one as history shows.
--
Денис В. Шеломовский
Denis V. Shelomovskij
