On 2/24/2015 2:27 PM, deadalnix wrote:
This may not be @safe depending on the type of E.
The code is a template, and so relies on inference.
Also, this do not really solve the garbage problem
Steven pointed out the correct fix for that.
Also, there are no way to ensure that the array is going to be bound to one thread, even without shared (exception, delegate, destructor, pure return). You need at least atomic increment and/or decrement.
No. The correct solution is to fix any cases of implicit sharing. If they don't have bugzilla issues, file them.
I have to admit, that is pretty cool. But it is only gonna work with value types.
I don't see that limitation at all.
You need bound check: end <= start <= array.length
See the antecedent: "More could be done: [...] 5. bounds checking"
