On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 07:08:26 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 10/11/15 7:25 AM, deadalnix wrote:
On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 02:01:09 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
AFAIK, Walter and Andrei are still in favor of something
that's at
least similar to DIP 74. Andrei made a comment in a thread
just the
other day that indicated that he was in favor of having a way
to build
reference counting into classes. So, I don't know why you
think that
it's not going to be implemented other than the fact that it
hasn't
been implemented yet. It wouldn't surprise me if the DIP
needed some
tweaking though.
Yes, and that's quite ridiculous. I mean this is getting into
ridiculous
ego battle.
It's unlikely that adding inflammation to this would help too
much - sticking to the technical points is more helpful.
You're saying that as far as you can tell you have made the
perfect argument in favor of your proposed approach (have you
written it up as a DIP?) and that essentially there is no
reasonable way your idea could not be accepted. If you failed
to raise the response you think that proposal deserves, getting
emotional about it can't possibly be more productive than
reiterating the technical point.
We're all on the same boat. We want to make D better. Let's.
Andrei
No I'm not saying I've made the perfect argument.
I'm saying that DIP 25 was implemented and showed that it was too
limited. The various experiment with it showed that is wasn't
enough (ref counted objects) or required to jump though a lot of
hoops for somewhat disappointing result (ref counted arrays).
DIP74 is a direct result of DIP25 limitations. I think we should
start by acknowledging that the DIP25 experiment was not a
success before taking it for granted and proceed.
I do think a buffed up version of DIP25 would make DIP74 obsolete
(or implementable as a library).
