On Friday, 28 April 2017 at 09:12:03 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Friday, 28 April 2017 at 09:02:19 UTC, Moritz Maxeiner wrote:
On Friday, 28 April 2017 at 08:26:28 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
If it isn't sound then it isn't worth mentioning...
So you claim...
Actually, unsound lifetime management is worse than nothing as
far as correctness goes... so I guess it is worth mentioning as
a warning rather than a recommendation.
Actually, applying "sound" or "unsound" to D's GC lifetime
management in general is worse than realizing that whether using
it for a specific use case is sound or unsound is entirely
dependent on that use case... so I guess it is worth mentioning
as a tool a developer should read up on.
Also, you seem to imply that I made a recommendation to use the
GC's lifetime management. I did not.
If D had ownership pointers then it would've been possible to
sort this out, but D is perpetually locked to the current
pointer/GC model for reasons that aren't particularly
convincing, i.e. beliefs.
I'm sorry, but that's just plain wrong. D does not have ownership
pointers because nobody that wants them has stepped up and
1) Done the work of drafting an informal proposal that *actually
deals with _all_ of the issues involved*
2) Developed that informal proposal into a DIP
3) Wrote the implementation and sent a PR
Every time it comes up there are ideas, or sometimes even
reasonably well formed informal proposals, but none of the
proponents ever actually follows up and improves such proposals
to the point where all the issues are dealt with. Claiming that D
doesn't have ownership mechanics because of beliefs when none of
the (vocal) proponents are willing to actually get down to it and
*do the work* is, frankly, asinine; do you generally expect
people to do things for you they aren't interested in without
recompense?
