On 30 September 2014 10:44, deadalnix via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, 30 September 2014 at 00:33:08 UTC, Manu via > Digitalmars-d wrote: >> >> I don't see ref that way at all. I see it so much simpler than that: >> ref is a type of pointer. It's effectively T(immutable(*)). >> It's uses are emergent from what it is; a good way to pass big things >> around in argument lists, or share references to a single instance of >> something. > > > "I don't agree with your diagnostic. I'm suing ref conforming of > cases 2 and 3 of your diagnostic". > > That sounds like a self defeating statement.
... huh? I'm not saying your analysis of use cases are false, I'm just saying that I felt the reasoning is backwards, and possibly conceptually limiting. I think the use cases should be emergent of the definition, not that the definition should be defined by (read: limited to) the typical uses. You said ref conflated several meanings, I'm just framing it differently. I don't think it conflates them, I think they're all good uses of the tool.
