On Friday, 25 April 2014 at 12:59:55 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 08:21:38 -0400, David Nadlinger
<c...@klickverbot.at> wrote:
On Friday, 25 April 2014 at 12:07:00 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
One interesting thing about this is that the compiler
implementation may make some @nogc code valid on some
compilers, and invalid on others, even though the resulting
execution is the same.
I don't think this is a desirable behavior. @nogc should be
decided in the frontend, before closure allocation
optimizations take place.
I don't know that it's desirable to have @nogc reject code even
though an allocation does not occur. I agree the situation is
not ideal, but @nogc is a practical optimization.
I can think of other cases where the GC may be optimized out.
To reject such code in @nogc would make it much less attractive.
-Steve
It is unacceptable to have code that fails with one compiler and
works with the other despite the shared frontend version. Such
"enhanced" @nogc attributes must be placed into compiler-specific
attribute space and not as a core language feature.
