Am Sun, 10 Nov 2013 21:03:34 +0900 schrieb Kenji Hara <[email protected]>:
> So, separating "inout postblit' and 'unique postblit' may be reasonable. > > (However, it seems to me that the syntax "this(inout this) inout;" looks > weird... > > Kenji Hara I see the value in DIP49. There is a hole in the type system that needs a proper solution and it is astonishing that the "unique" concept is already there in D, but existed under the radar of public perception. I haven't read everything, but agree with making the language more fail safe any time. I just find inout confusing as well. inout as a wildcard for const-ness is irritating enough, and with the double meaning as unique it might be difficult to read code using inout. Are the two concepts really coupled? Does it make the implementation of the DIP easier? Or should we have something like "unique" as a keyword? -- Marco
