On Thursday, 11 December 2014 at 09:07:44 UTC, Ola Fosheim
Grøstad wrote:
On Thursday, 11 December 2014 at 00:35:46 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
It is always safe to consider scopeness of the retrun value
(if marked scope) as being the intersection of the lifetime of
parameters.
That should cover most bases, and we can still extends later
if this is too limited (I suspect it is ok for most cases).
Linear typing is already extremely limiting, by limiting it
even further you end up with something annoying. You basically
get a version of memory safety that does not solve any typical
memory unsafe situations.
By having pointers that do scope-depth-tracking you do at least
get a generic solution that can be optimized away when
possible. The D authors have to accept that you need to embed
ownership in pointers if you want memory safety and
convenience, or that you have to provide means to guide the
semantic analysis. You need one or the other, or both, but you
cannot pretend that you can do without.
Arbitrary constraints are annoying, not convenient. If I as a
programmer know that something is safe, then the compiler
should accept it, and the language should allow me express it.
I have no idea what you are saying. It sounds like randomly
generated gibberish.
