On 4/17/2014 10:41 AM, Dicebot wrote:
On Thursday, 17 April 2014 at 16:57:32 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
With current limitations @nogc is only useful to verify that embedded code which
does not have GC at all does not use any GC-triggering language features before
it comes to weird linker errors / rt-asserts. But that does not work good either
because of next problem:
Remember that @nogc will be inferred for template functions. That means that
whether it is @nogc or not will depend on its arguments being @nogc, which is
just what is needed.
No, it looks like I have stated that very wrong because everyone understood it
in completely opposite way. What I mean is that `put()` is NOT @nogc and it
still should work. Same as weakly pure is kind of pure but allowed to mutate its
arguments, proposed "weakly @nogc" can only call GC via functions directly
accessible from its arguments.
I don't see value for this behavior.
I know that you bring up the array literal issue and gc a lot, but this is
simply not a major issue with @nogc. The @nogc will tell you if it will
allocate on the gc or not, on a case by case basis, and you can use easy
workarounds as necessary.
Beg my pardon, I have overstated this one indeed but temptation was just too
high :) On actual topic - what "case by case" basis do you have in mind? There
are no cases mentioned in spec when literals are guaranteed to not allocated
AFAIK. Probably compiler developers know them but definitely not me.
That's why the compiler will tell you if it will allocate or not.
