On Saturday, 6 December 2014 at 23:59:01 UTC, Piotrek wrote:
On Saturday, 6 December 2014 at 11:06:16 UTC, Jacob Carlborg
wrote:
On 2014-12-06 10:50, Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
I've been over it so many times.
I suggest you take the time and write down how your vision of
"ref" looks like and the issue with the current
implementation. A blog post, a DIP or similar. Then you can
easily refer to that in cases like this. Then you don't have
to repeat yourself so many times. That's what I did when there
was a lot of talk about AST macros. I was tired of constantly
repeating myself so I created a DIP. It has already saved me
more time than it took to write the actual DIP.
@Manu
Seconded. Please create even short one. I coulnd'd find any
example of use case you are referring to (as you said I don't
use D"ref" so often) . I plan to apply D for embedded systems,
so full control is a must. But so far Water still has the most
accurate taste according to my experience.
BTW. I consider game devs to be the most underpaid programmers,
so your perspective is very precious to me.
Cheers
Piotrek
I'd like to not polute this thread with the ref topic.
Long story short:
- it is hard to know if something is ref, making it hard to
metaprogram.
- you sometime want to switch ref on and off (for instance, you
may use ref to avoid copies, which is not worthwhile for small
values) which is complex.
- auto ref do not cut it.
That is the extra short version, please start a thread on the
subject. Please, please, this one is complicated enough.
