On Sunday, 2 August 2015 at 03:18:59 UTC, Etienne Cimon wrote:
On Sunday, 2 August 2015 at 02:49:03 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Sunday, 2 August 2015 at 01:50:50 UTC, David Nadlinger
wrote:
Again, am I missing something obvious here? I can't quite
believe that struct lifetime would have been quite as broken
for so long.
I suspect that what it comes down to is that opAssign doesn't
get used all that frequently. Most structs simply don't need
it, so code which would hit the bug probably isn't all that
common. Obviously, such code exists, but it requires using
both opAssign and then putting those structs in arrays - and
then catching the resulting bug (which you would hope would
happen, but if the difference is subtle enough, it wouldn't
necessarily be caught). And if structs with opAssign normally
also define a postblit, then it's that much less likely that
the problem would be hit.
- Jonathan M Davis
I couldn't get reference counted types to work as struct
members, for some hard-to-track reason, and am actively
avoiding it right now as a result. Maybe we've found a cause
here? The might be a lot of people like me that gave up trying
to track it, and are simply avoiding error-prone uses of
structs.
Well, another thing to consider is that until very recently,
structs that were on the heap didn't have their destructors run.
So, there have been way too many holes with regards to this sort
of thing and structs. I don't know how many people have stayed
away from using structs in error-prone cases like this as opposed
to simply had buggy code and not noticed it, but there very well
may be quite a few folks out there who have hit this sort of
thing and then been very confused about the subtle bugs that
resulted, and it's just that no one who noticed figured it out
well enough to report it.
- Jonathan M Davis
