On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 18:08:00 -0400, Chad J
<chadj...@__spam.is.bad__gmail.com> wrote:
So I dug up Andrei's thread that mentioned something about properties
that hasn't been discussed as of recent: expensive copy semantics.
...
Towards the end of the discussion Steven Schveighoffer mentioned that
this need to acquire and release is dictated by the type being used in
the property, not by the property itself. Thus it is the type's
responsibility to make decisions about how it should be
moved/swapped/acquired/released.
...
Now I'm assuming the ref return and ref passing of these BigInts doesn't
invoke their copy-constructors. Is there any reason this can't work?
Yeah, I think that's exactly what I was thinking. If a struct controls
its copy semantics, you can avoid aliasing problems, and use reference
properties for doing swap-like operations.
-Steve
