On Wednesday, 10 August 2016 at 20:36:38 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
Proposal text:
https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/DIP1000.md
I trust the leadership that this is an important issue (including
for perception), but...
Does memory safety deserve such an extensive use of complexity?
From a (very) naive POV, how come ref/scoped/@safe can't be
"replaced" wholesale by a type constructor owned!T + lifetimes,
that this DIP otherwise introduces.
This DIP ensures unsafe references do not escape, but I can't
remember having such a problem even once, sorry.
Does this allow throwing exceptions in @nogc code? That would be
great.
