On 2/27/15 10:34 AM, David Gileadi wrote:
On 2/27/15 6:36 AM, "Marc =?UTF-8?B?U2Now7x0eiI=?= <[email protected]>"
wrote:
On Friday, 27 February 2015 at 08:26:14 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
On Thursday, 26 February 2015 at 22:04:09 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 2/26/15 2:03 PM, Brian Schott wrote:
One of the first things that stood out to me is that "add ref" is two
words and "release" is one. For the sake of symmetry, how about these:
* opIncRef, opDecRef
* opAcquire, opRelease
All - please PLEASE do not derail this into yet another debate about
which names are best. -- Andrei
Using protocols rather than enforcing a particular implementation is
nice, but D needs to stop reinventing terminology and syntax matters.
-- snip --
AddRef/Release is established COM terminology.
One reason for keeping COM terminology might be if
std.c.windows.com.IUnknown can automatically take advantage of DIP74. Of
course this could also be a downside—would DIP74 break existing COM code
in D?
I explicitly avoided the COM names in order to avoid potential confusion
and code breakage. People can easily add IUnknownAuto that does the
forwarding. -- Andrei
