On Thursday, 13 November 2014 at 09:29:22 UTC, Manu via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
Are you guys saying you don't feel this proposal is practical?
http://wiki.dlang.org/User:Schuetzm/scope
I think it's a very interesting approach, and comes from a
practical
point of view. It solves the long-standings issues, like scope
return
values, in a very creative way.
It is better solved using static analysis and it is part of a
bigger problem complex where ref counting should be considered.
Otherwise you end up writing N versions of the same code. You
want the same interface for GC, shared_ptr, unique_ptr,
stack_allocated_data etc. Let the compiler do the checking.
What does "shared" tell the compiler? It tells it "retain no
references after completion of this function". Like with "pure",
it should be opposite. You should tell the compiler "I transfer
ownership of this parameter". Then have a generic concept "owned"
for parameters that is resolved using templates. Types that can
be owned has to provide release() and move(). That would work for
GC, shared_ptr, unique_ptr, but not for stack allocated data:
GC ptr: release() and move() are dummies.
shared_ptr: release() decrements, move() just transfers
unique_ptr: release() destroys, move() transfers
D has to stop adding crutches. Generalize!
