On Tuesday, 24 February 2015 at 16:18:45 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 2/24/15 4:44 AM, "Marc =?UTF-8?B?U2Now7x0eiI=?=
<[email protected]>" wrote:
As one example, here is what I originally suggested:
http://wiki.dlang.org/User:Schuetzm/scope
Walter and I discussed this proposal at length several times.
I think it can be made to work. I also think it's overly
complicated for what it does and that it's not brilliant.
These are the most dangerous designs: complicated, not
brilliant, but can be made to work - because they end up
getting implemented. We want to get away without implementing
it.
Currently we want to explore DIP25, which we believe has a very
good price/performance profile (whilst not being brilliant
itself), and its impact on designing safe struct types. It is
our suspicion that DIP25 is all we need for making involved
struct types safe. If that's the case, that paves the road
toward safe class types using reference counting with very
small language changes.
There will be stragglers, such as taking slices into
stack-allocated statically-sized arrays. At that point the
question will be whether we can implement that as a @safe
struct, we need a language change, or we can just live with it
(after all, using stack-allocated arrays in safe code is a
rather niche use).
So the short answer is: yes, I've studied your proposal and I
don't think it's good enough. Furthermore I don't think there
are small changes to it that will make it good enough. This is
not personal and please don't take offense over that. In
contrast, I think DIP25 is good (partly because it's
deceptively simple) and I want to pursue it and its
consequences.
I'm certainly not offended. I don't think the proposal is
"brilliant" either, it was meant as a starting point for
discussions, not as a completely finished proposal aka DIP. Out
of interest, because that will be crucial for the further
development: are you completely opposed to any kind of ownership
system, or is it something specific about this particular
proposal that you don't like?
