On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 15:46:54 +0000, bitwise wrote: > On Monday, 25 July 2016 at 07:43:34 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote: >> I've been saying for a very long time we need @assumenogc attribute >> like we have @trusted for @safe. > > So I'm not crazy then ;) > > I'm wondering if Andrei and Walter consider @trusted a win though. They > seem to have such firm stances on certain issues that it makes me wonder > if they consider things like @trusted a liability. > > Personally, I lean way to the side of flexibility, and believe a good > language shouldn't force you to code a certain way(within reason). I > feel like this type of feature is very reasonable. > > Bit
@nogc conflates "doesn't allocate memory from the GC heap because I don't want my application to use the GC at all" with "doesn't cause GC collection pauses". The latter can have a @assumenogc annotation that works -- you call GC.disable and GC.enable as appropriate. The former can't.
