On Wednesday, 29 May 2013 at 12:50:36 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
I have been thinking about this long time ago. Clearly, slice
semantics will change in GC-less environment and will require
more restrictive operation set. No automatic slice
concatenation at the very least.
Right. Without implementing the append function, there's a linker
error if you try to do it:
minimal.d:29: undefined reference to `_d_arrayappendcTX'
which really isn't half bad, the line number is there too, I'll
take it.
Another thing I'm thinking about is immutable data. String
literals are immutable(char)[] and ok to store, so maybe any
immutable data would be ok. I'm thinking there might be a
newImmutable function I can make that puts the data on a special
heap that is never free()'d. Maybe. idk, I should probably get
back to my actual work soon anyway.
Isn't it what "scope" was supposed to be all about? :)
Qualifier that prohibits leaking data outside of the current
scope.
Maybe, but it doesn't actually work like that right now anyway.
Dunno. If something like this can be done, it will need full
re-implementation of standard library (similar to minlibd) as
assumption made about feature set allowed and druntime differ a
lot.
Yeah, but manual memory stuff would be useful even if you have
the gc so there should be some carryover possible.
