On Sunday, 12 May 2013 at 13:07:15 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 5/12/13 5:50 AM, deadalnix wrote:
On Sunday, 12 May 2013 at 09:10:56 UTC, Simen Kjaeraas wrote:
On 2013-05-12, 08:12, deadalnix wrote:
On Saturday, 11 May 2013 at 22:24:38 UTC, Simen Kjaeraas
wrote:
I'm not convinced. unique, like const or immutable, is
transitive.
If foo
is unique, then so is foo.bar.
That isn't true. Please read microsoft's paper.
Done. *Mostly* transitive, then. Anything reachable through a
unique
reference is either unique or immutable.
No.
Think about it : when you reach something via a uniq pointer,
it is by
definition not unique as you have 2 copies of it, because you
just
accessed it.
I don't think so. Lent and destructive read can be used.
Destructive read would be super confusing and due to the Correct
point below, don't ensure anything.
Plus the unique pointer refers to a unique mutable graph of
object. A
object into that graph can have several object into the graph
refereing
to it.
Correct.
